Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (KING'S BENCH DIVISION).

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household (Sir Victor Warrender) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:

I have received your Address praying that, in pursuance of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, two judges may be appointed to the High Court of Justice to fill vacancies in the King's Bench Division thereof, and I will issue directions in accordance with your desire

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

BANGALORE.

Duchess of ATHOLL: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Government of India have, over a long period of years, sold land in the civil station of Bangalore to private persons and public bodies, sales which have been ratified by the granting of British titles under the authority of the Secretary of State for India; and whether he is satisfied that these titles are valid?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I cannot say how titles in land have been regulated in the past, but I am making inquiries.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Is it not the case that they have been ratified by my right hon. Friend and his predecessor?

Sir S. HOARE: I have just told my Noble Friend that I cannot say how they have been regulated, but I am making inquiries.

Duchess of ATHOLL: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has considered a joint memorial, dated 4th September, 1934, from the Bangalore Trades Association, the Southern Division Ratepayers Association, Bangalore, the Bangalore Ratepayers' Association, and the Anglo-Indian and Domiciled European Association in Bangalore, protesting against the proposed retrocession of the civil station to Mysore, on the ground, among others, that much land in the station has been sold by the Government of India to private persons and public bodies; is the said retrocession to be one of the conditions of Mysore State entering the proposed All-India Federation; and will he abandon the proposed handing over of loyal British and British-Indian subjects against their will to Indian rule?

Sir S. HOARE: I have seen a copy of the representation to which the Noble Lady refers, but I understand that the original was addressed through the Resident in Mysore to the Viceroy. I have not received any indication of the views of the Government of India on this representation. The conditions on which Mysore State should be admitted to Federation can obviously only be settled when an Act to provide for a Federation has been passed, but there is no direct connection between the question of retrocession which is being considered on its merits and the constitutional proposals. With regard to the last part of the question, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the Noble Lady's question of 30th July.

Duchess of ATHOLL: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has considered the memorial from 30,000 Moslems in the civil and military station of Bangalore, protesting against the proposed partial retrocession of the station to Mysore on the grounds that, as subjects of a Hindu State, their interests, culture, and existence as a separate community would be adversely affected; is there any precedent for such a proposal for handing over loyal British-Indian subjects against their will to Indian rule, and will he now abandon it?

Sir S. HOARE: The position regarding the Moslem representation is the same as with the representation of the Bangalore Trades Association.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Is it not the fact that the Prime Minister of Mysore is himself a Moslem?

Sir S. HOARE: That is the case.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: Is it not the fact that the State of Mysore was represented at the last Round-Table Conference by a high official who was a Mussulman?

Sir S. HOARE: That is also the case.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Are all Mussulmans agreed on the subject?

EXPLOSIVES (GOVERNMENT STORES).

Sir A. KNOX: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is satisfied that the regulations for guarding explosives in India are sufficiently stringent?

Sir S. HOARE: I know no reason to doubt the sufficiency of the regulations.

Sir A. KNOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the report of the police administration in Calcutta for 1933 which shows that the police, in searches, came on large quantities of dynamite which had evidently been stolen from Government stores?

Sir S. HOARE: I think the position is as secure as it can be made, so far as Government stores are concerned, but, if my hon. and gallant Friend has any specific information which he would like me to investigate, I am perfectly ready to do so.

POLITICAL DEPARTMENT BUREAU (CYPHERS).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of the discontent prevailing in India on account of the fact that no Indian has yet been admitted to the Cypher Bureau of the Political Department, which has been in existence since 1925; and whether he can give the reasons for this exclusion?

Sir S. HOARE: Some of the cyphers at present in use in the Political Department Bureau are not the property of the Government of India who are not therefore at liberty to decide the conditions under which they are used. It seems likely that the use of these cyphers will before long be discontinued. In this event the position in regard to recruitment will be reconsidered.

MR. SARAT CHANDRA BOSE.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Mr. Sarat Chandra Bose, who has been imprisoned without trial since April, 1933, has forwarded representations to the Government of India asking that he may be brought to trial in order that he may be given an opportunity to refute the charges brought against him in the Legislative Assembly; and whether he will advise the Government of India either to bring Mr. Bose to trial or to release him?

Sir S. HOARE: A communication of the nature indicated has been received by the Government of India. As regards the last part of the question Mr. Sarat Chandra Bose, who is a State prisoner detained under Regulation III, was released from jail custody in April, 1933, and since then has been permitted to live in his own house at Giddarpahar. I am not at present prepared to advise any action on the lines suggested in the question.

Mr. WILLIAMS: As this gentleman has been under police supervision for the past 18 months, does not the right hon. Gentleman think the time has now arrived when he should either be released or have some specific charge made against him?

Sir S. HOARE: I am afraid I do not agree with that suggestion. This individual is regarded as a danger in Bengal, and I have no reason to intervene in the action of the Government of Bengal. Two judges have scrutinised the question of his detention, and they are satisfied that he should be detained.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether, if this person is regarded as a danger, the nature of the danger should not be brought before the judges referred to and the case dealt with in the ordinary course, so that the man may either be punished for any crime of which he is found guilty or else released?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir. It was the considered policy of the Government of India and the Government of Bengal to intern this individual under Regulation III. That being so, there seems no justification for me taking any further action.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is there any likelihood of a time limit being imposed upon this detention or is it to go on for ever?

Sir S. HOARE: As I have said in my answer, I am not at present prepared to advise on the lines suggested.

IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, LIMITED.

Mr. T. SMITH: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that indignation has been aroused in India at the news that Imperial Chemicals, Limited, are negotiating with the government of India for a 50–year monopoly to exploit the chemical resources of the Punjab; and, in view of the fact that India will shortly be given a new constitution, what steps he proposes to take to ensure that in the event of any such contract being entered into the interests of India will be adequately safeguarded?

Sir S. HOARE: I have no information beyond what is contained in the official report of the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly on the 14th August, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. The matter is one within the discretion of the authorities in India, who will, I have no doubt, see that the interests of India are properly safeguarded.

Mr. HANNON: Would it not be a very valuable thing for the economic development of India that corporations like the Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, should take part in it?

Sir S. HOARE: I can quite imagine that such would be the case, but as I say, I have no details as to this matter in my possession.

Oral Answers to Questions — MANCHURIA (BRITISH INDUSTRIAL MISSION).

Mr. BANFIELD: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any protest from the Chinese government with regard to the despatch of the British industrial mission to Manchuria; and if so, whether he can state its nature and the British reply to it?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): No, Sir. In reply, however, to certain observations made by the Chinese Legation before the departure of the mission for Manchuria, the opportunity was taken to emphasise its entirely non-political and unofficial character.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARGENTINE RAILWAYS (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Sir CYRIL COBB,: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the hardship suffered by British investors in the various Argentine railways owing to local restrictions imposed upon them, with the result that staff in excess of requirements cannot be discharged and unnecessary expenditure reduced; and will he make suitable representations to the Argentine government on behalf of British investors who have lent their savings to provide railways for Argentina upon which they are now receiving very little return?

Sir J. SIMON: I am informed that the more effective and economic use of labour on railways in Argentina, and its regulation, are included in the scope of an award recently issued by the President of the Argentine Republic as arbitrator between the Railway Companies and the labour unions. The full bearing of the award will be known when the National Railway Board has issued its findings on labour regulations, in accordance with a clause of the award which provides that these findings shall be issued within a period of three months. No request for intervention has been received by His Majesty's Government, and I do not consider that such a step would at the present stage serve any useful purpose in view of the circumstances which I have described.

Mr. WILMOT: Is it not true that the hardships which British investors have suffered in this connection, arise very largely out of the Government's Ottawa policy?

Sir J. SIMON: I do not think there is any connection at all.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: Is it not the fact that a very large number of the employés of the Argentine railways are British subjects?

Sir J. SIMON: I have no doubt there are British subjects among them, but I do not know the proportion.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCARNO TREATY.

Mr. RHYS: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the view of His Majesty's Government, the Treaty of Locarno is binding upon this
country, in view of the fact that Germany has given notice to leave the League of Nations?

Sir J. SIMON: As I informed my hon. Friend, the Member for Camarthen (Mr. R. T. Evans) on 9th July last, the attitude of His Majesty's Government with regard to the obligations of this country under the Locarno Treaties was fully explained by me to the House on 7th November last in the course of the Debate on the adjournment. I have nothing to add to or to substract from the statement then made.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAAR PLEBISCITE (MAINTENANCE OF ORDER).

Mr. MABANE: 12.
asked, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any final arrangements have been settled as to the manner in which the plebiscite will be taken in the Saar territory?

Sir J. SIMON: The Saar Plebiscite Commission, which entered on its duties on the 1st July last, is entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with powers of organisation, direction and supervision in regard to the plebiscite in the Saar territory to be held on the 13th January next. The arrangements for the holding of the plebiscite are being duly made by that body. Various matters arising out of the plebiscite will also be discussed at the forthcoming session of the council on the 21st November.

Mr. MABANE: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is justification for any fears that Powers interested may attempt to interfere with the manner in which the plebiscite is likely to be taken?

Sir J. SIMON: I should trust not, but I have notice of a question on this subject from the Leader of the Opposition, which will be answered later.

Mr. LANSBURY: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with reference to the maintenance of order in the Saar Territory?

Sir J. SIMON: The responsibility for maintaining order in the Saar Basin rests with the Governing Commission of
the Saar, and this responsibility continues to be successfully discharged by the Commission. A situation in which the Government of the Saar found itself unable to maintain order ought not to occur, and I trust will never occur. So long ago as 1926 the Saar Governing Commission stated to the Council of the League that it would regard itself as entitled in case of absolute necessity to call upon troops stationed outside the territory and in the vicinity of its frontiers to assist in maintaining order. The Council of the League took note of this report from the Saar Governing Commission on the 18th March, 1926.
The House will, therefore, see that there never has been any question of the use of British troops, and nothing of the sort on our part is contemplated. Any French dispositions in the part of France bordering on the Saar territory on the west are purely precautionary, and, as I have pointed out, there can be no question of the use of external force for preserving order unless the Saar Governing Commission is unable to discharge the task laid upon it and is compelled to ask for assistance. The German Ambassador saw me at my request this morning, and confirmed the information published in the Press on Saturday that the German Government authorities had issued orders to the S.A. and S.S. formations on the German side of the Saar frontier prohibiting over a belt 25 miles wide and over a period which covers the date of the taking of the plebiscite, the wearing of uniforms, parades, processions or gatherings of any kind, and have at the same time issued a solemn assurance that there is no danger of an invasion of the territory of the Saar. I have expressed both to Herr von Hoesch and to the French Ambassador to-day the satisfaction of His Majesty's Government at this announcement, and at the same time have received from the French Ambassador the assurance that the French arrangements are of a purely precautionary kind as already indicated. In these circumstances we have the right to expect that, with due restraint in all quarters, the plebiscite which it is the duty of the Council of the League to conduct will be carried through properly and in due order on the 13th January.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

BRITISH AND ITALIAN LEGATIONS.

Sir JOHN HASLAM: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is intended to raise the British. Legation in Peking to the status of an embassy; and whether there is any understanding on this subject between the Powers mainly interested in China?

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is still in existence an agreement by which this country and others undertook not to raise the status of their legation in China to that of an embassy without prior consultation; and whether this country was advised in advance of the recent action of the Italian Government in this regard?

Sir J. SIMON: In 1919 an understanding was reached with certain Powers that no new embassies would be created without previous accord, and confidential consultations with special reference to China have been held from time to time with these and other Powers. The Italian Government, however, in associating itself with this understanding made it clear that they did not limit their freedom of action in countries where a European Power already had an embassy. The Italian Government informed His Majesty's Government on the 25th September last of their decision to raise their legation in China to the status of an embassy and a communique to that effect was issued next day. His Majesty's Government do not at present intend to raise the British Legation at Peking to the status of an embassy.

Sir A. POWNALL: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is already an Ambassador for some other country in China?

Sir J. SIMON: The Soviet Government have an Ambassador there.

BRITISH MILITARY EXERCISES.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Japanese Garrison Commander at Tientsin recently requested the British and other garrisons' in that town to notify the Japanese of any military manoeuvres that they may intend to carry
out near Manchuria; whether he will state the nature of the reply given on behalf of His Majesty's Government to the Japanese representatives at Tientsin; on what grounds the Japanese Government considered itself entitled to object to British action on Chinese territory, and on the basis of what treaty rights foreign garrisons are entitled to carry out military manoeuvres in China; and whether, as such treaty rights are incompatible with China's status as a member of the League of Nations, His Majesty's Government will in future regard them as null and void under Article XX of the Covenant?

Sir J. SIMON: Under the Protocol of the 7th September, 1901, various Powers, including the United Kingdom, have a treaty right to station troops at Shanhaikwan and other places along the railway from that town to Peking in order to keep open communications between Peking and the sea. It has been the practice for the British troops stationed at Shanhaikwan to carry out exercises on convenient ground beyond the Great Wall dividing Manchuria from the rest of China and therefore strictly speaking beyond the furthest point to [which under the Protocol British troops had the right of access. On the 26th June last the Officer Commanding the troops at Shanhaikwan received a joint communication from the local representatives of the Japanese Army and the Manchurian authorities expressing the view that British troops should not without their consent enter upon what was termed the "soil of the Manchukuo Empire." As His Majesty's Government had no desire to be drawn into a discussion of the juridical questions involved in this communication it was decided that the British troops at Shanhaikwan should abandon the practice, which was not clearly authorised by the Protocol, of carrying out exercises beyond the Great Wall. I would add that equally suitable ground for the purpose is available inside the Wall.

Mr. JONES: May I take it, first, that the British Government have abandoned this practice for the future, and, secondly, whether the same embargo applies to the troops of other nations?

Sir J. SIMON: As regards the first of the two supplementary questions, my answer indicates the decision that has been taken, and I have no reason to think
it will be changed. I am quite confident that the answer to the second question s in the affirmative, though I do not carry the details in my mind.

RAILWAY LOANS (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Mr. MOREING: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that each of the two railways between Nanking and Shanghai and Nanking and Tientsin, respectively, at the present time carries more extensive traffic than any of the. other railways in China and that both these railways are in default to British bond-holders; to what extent are they in default; and what steps is he taking to secure prompt payment of the indebtedness?

Sir J. SIMON: I am not in a position to confirm my hon. Friend's statement about the traffic position, but I am aware that the service of the loans is seriously in arrear. The figures for which he asks are as follow: On the 1st June last, the amounts due in respect of the Shanghai-Nanking Railway loan and the British portion of the Tientsin-Pukow Railway loan were £790,772 and £2,182,357 respectively. His Majesty's Minister in China has made frequent representations to the Chinese Government on the subject of this indebtedness and will continue to press for full and prompt payment of the amount due.

Mr. MOREING: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask what has become of the Chinese promise to set aside a certain regular sum to repay arrears?

Sir J. SIMON: I think I am right in saying that in the case of one of these railway loans there was a payment made not long ago, but I should have to ask notice from my hon. Friend before I could properly make a further statement about it.

Mr. MOREING: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he was informed of the recent visit to this country of Mr. Huang Pe-tsiaou, the managing director of the Shanghai-Nanking Railway; and whether advantage was taken of this gentleman's presence in London to discuss with him the arrears due to British bond-holders of the Shanghai-Nanking Railway?

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir. I have heard nothing of this gentleman having visited this country.

Mr. MOREING: Do not the Far Eastern Department of the Foreign Office keep in touch with the Chinese Legation so as to have full information of any important Chinese arriving in London?

Sir J. SIMON: Certainly, all proper contact is kept, but at the same time I might point out that if it were the case of a managing director of a railway company who was in this country, one would have thought that it was primarily a matter in which the bondholders would be interested.

RAILWAY CONTRACTS.

Mr. MOREING: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the contract for the construction of the Chinese railway from Yushang to Pingsiang has been given to a German firm, and all permanent-way material and rolling stock are to be supplied from Germany, and that the sum of £500,000 is due to the British and Chinese Corporation for surveys already undertaken on the line; and whether any payment has been made to that British firm or any reason advanced for withholding from them the contract for the construction of the railway?

Sir J. SIMON: I have seen Press reports to the effect that such a contract has been awarded to a German firm, and I am also aware that the sum of approximately £500,000 is due to the British and Chinese Corporation. His Majesty's Minister in China has been in touch with the local representatives of the Corporation and has taken up the matter with the Chinese Government, who have, however, so far made no reply to the representations addressed to them.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Is it the case that in the spring of this year the Chinese Government appointed a German professor as railway adviser?

Sir J. SIMON: Does my hon. Friend mean in connection with this matter?

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: Well, in connection with the railway traffic.

Sir J. SIMON: I think that question would have to be put down. I do not know the answer off-hand.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH AMBASSADORS (FINAN-CIAL ADVISERS).

Mr. EMRYS-EVANS: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the amount of the salary and allowances paid to the Financial Adviser to His Majesty's Embassy in Paris; what duties he will carry out; and whether any urgent financial problems have arisen between this country and France which have made the appointment necessary?

Sir J. SIMON: The Financial Adviser to His Majesty's Ambassador at Paris receives salary as an Assistant Secretary in His Majesty's Civil Service (at present £1,153 15s., rising to £1,353 12s.), together with a foreign allowance of £700 and rent allowance of 21,000 francs per annum. Financial Advisers have now been appointed to His Majesty's Ambassadors at Berlin, Paris and Washington. The object of these appointments is not the settlement of a particular financial problem, but to ensure that His Majesty's representatives at these posts should be provided with the financial knowledge and experience which are so essential to the present-day conduct of international affairs.

Mr. HANNON: Will my right hon. Friend kindly say whether the Financial Secretary in Paris is not discharging his duties to the full satisfaction of His Majesty's Government?

Sir J. SIMON: That is certainly so.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

JAPANESE-ESTONIAN AGREEMENT.

Mr. T. SMITH: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the recent commercial agreement between the Japanese and Estonian Governments granting most-favoured-nation treatment to both countries, but stipulating that this provision is not to apply to any preferential tariff which may be granted by Japan to Manchukuo or to the Republic of China; and whether he will represent to the Japanese Government that this provision is incompatible with respect to Article I of the Nine-Power Treaty, and to the Estonian Government that its assent to this provision is inconsistent with the acceptance of the Assembly Re-
port of 24th February, 1933, and particularly with the obligation not to recognise the existing regime in Manchuria either de facto or de jure contained in that Report.

Sir J. SIMON: The provisions of the Japanese-Estonian agreement to which the hon. Member refers were duly reported to me. The question of the relevance of the provisions of the Assembly's Report to the matter is primarily one for the Advisory Committee set up by the Assembly to follow the Sino-Japanese dispute.

COTTON INDUSTRY.

Captain ELL ISTON: 63.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has information regarding the proposed increased duties on cotton piece-goods for the Philippine markets; and whether he has ascertained how such increased duties are likely to affect our export trade?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE, (Mr. Runciman): Details of the proposals for increased duties have not, so far as I am aware, yet been made public, but on the information at present available it appears that they may have a serious effect on exports of cotton piece-goods from the United Kingdom. The matter has therefore been taken up with the United States Government.

TRADE AGREEMENTS.

Miss WARD: 64
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he can make any statement relative to the trade agreements with Iceland, Norway and Sweden, the first year of which expired on 27th June and 6th July, respectively;
(2) whether he has any statement to make with regard to the trade agreement with Denmark, the first year of which expired on 19th June, 1934; and
(3) whether he can make any statement relative to the trade agreement with Germany, the first year of which expired on 7th May, 1934?

Mr. RUNCI MAN: The agreements with Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Norway and Germany have on the whole proved satisfactory, except that difficulties have recently been experienced in connection with the agreement with Ger-
many on account of the German shortage of foreign exchange. I hope that any recurrence of these difficulties will be obviated by the Anglo-German Payments Agreement of the 1st November. I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise that these agreements do not lend themselves to further discussion within the limits of an answer, but if she requires information on any specific points arising out of them I will do my best to obtain it for her.

IMPORT DUTIES (ELECTRIC LAMPS).

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 67.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any statement to make as to the reasons which led the Government not to give effect to the recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee in respect of the additional duties on complete electric lamps?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee to which my hon. Friend refers, affected primarily imports of electric lamps from Japan. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of an announcement issued to the Press on August 28th last which sets out the conditions on which His Majesty's Government decided not to give effect to the recommendations.

ARGENTINE.

Marquess of CLYDESDALE: 68 and 69.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, in view of the considerable adverse balance of trade with the Argentine Republic, he will consider levying import duties on Argentine meat and possibly other foodstuffs imported into this country or, alternatively, taking measures to secure special privileged tariffs for British manufactured goods imported into the Argentine Republic, in view of the fact that Great Britain is the best customer of that country; and
(2) whether, in view of the fact that the existing arrangements under which meat and other foodstuffs are imported from the Argentine Republic free of duty come up for reconsideration next year and that Great Britain is the best customer for Argentine products, pressure can be brought to bear to secure special reduced tariffs for British manufactured goods imported into that country when new arrangements are made?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The imposition of duties and quantitative limitations on Argentina's principal imports into the United Kingdom is governed by the Convention and Supplementary Agreement concluded with Argentina in 1933. In return for the undertakings given, the Argentine Government conceded reductions and consolidations of Customs duties affecting a wide range of products in which the United Kingdom has a predominant interest. That Government also gave undertakings whereby practically the whole of the sterling exchange arising from the sale of Argentine products in this country is being made available to meet United Kingdom requirements. The Convention and Agreement cannot be terminated by either side before November, 1936, and it would be premature to forecast the attitude of His Majesty's Government when they come up for review.

RUSSIA.

Sir A. KNOX: 70.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total value of the exports and re-exports, respectively, to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the first nine months of 1934; what is the total value of the imports from Soviet Russia in the same period; and how far the total value of the exports and re-exports agrees at present with the proportion to imports of 1 to 1.7 laid down in the AngloRussian Trade Agreement?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Exports of United Kingdom produce and manufactures to the Union in the first nine months of 1934 amounted in value to £2,758,000 and re-exports to £2,609,000. Imports from the Union during the same period were valued at £12,723,000. The Anglo-Russian temporary commercial agreement does not fix a proportion of imports to exports but provides for the realisation of a ratio of 1.7 to 1 between the proceeds and the payments of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the United Kingdom in the year ending 31st December. I hope that this ratio will be realised.

Sir A. KNOX: Is it not the fact that the Anglo-Russian Trade Agreement has so far done the British importer in this country no good whatsoever?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 18 and 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he is aware that the British High Commissioner in Cairo recently recommended to the native Government the dismissal of two Egyptian Cabinet Ministers, and insisted upon the acceptance of such recommendation; whether those steps were supported by our Foreign Office; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to continue this policy in future;
(2) whether he will give an assurance that recommendations by His Majesty's Government for ministerial or other high official changes in Egypt will be made in future only when advice is asked from Egyptian responsible quarters, and not whenever His Majesty's representative in Cairo advises them; and whether, in the case of advice involving changes of Egyptian Cabinet Ministers and high officials, His Majesty's Government intend to accept responsibility for the consequences of such changes?

Sir J. SIMON: On the 3rd October the Egyptian Prime Minister, Abdel Fattah Yehia Pasha, at a moment when His Majesty the King of Egypt was unfortunately seriously indisposed, raised with the acting High Commissioner questions arising out of the political situation and pointed out that an emergency would involve the joint responsibility of Egypt and the United Kingdom. His Majesty's Government agree with this view: they have weighty responsibilities in Egypt and are, amongst other things, under the obligation to protect foreign lives and. property in that country. As a result of this conversation the acting High Commissioner subsequently indicated to the Prime Minister certain steps which might be expected to strengthen the position of the administration vis-à-vis Egyptian public opinion. The action taken by His Majesty's acting High Commissioner in Egypt has met with the full support of His Majesty's Government and the advice which he has rendered has been extended to the Egyptian Government with their authority and approval.

Mr. DAVIES: Do we understand that it is the practice of our Government here to make recommendations to dismiss Ministers in a country over which we have no control?

Sir J. SIMON: The circumstances in which the Acting High Commissioner made certain observations are stated very clearly in my original answer, and I conceive that in those citcumstances the Acting High Commissioner acted with perfect propriety.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING (FOREIGN DIPLOMATS).

Mr. ALB ERY: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the consent of the Foreign Office is obtained before broadcasting facilities in this country are placed at the disposal of foreign diplomats appointed to this country?

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND JAPAN.

Mr. WILMOT: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any official steps are being taken by either of the Powers concerned to the end that the former Treaty alliance between Japan and this country should be revived in some similar form?

Sir J. SIM0N: No, Sir.

Mr. WILMOT: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he has seen the persistent statements that a loan to the Japanese Government was likely to be floated in the City of London in the near future, and will he give an assurance that no such facilities will be granted?

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARGENTINE RAILWAYS (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Sir C. COBB: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will request His Majesty's Minister in Buenos Ayres to ascertain the date upon which His Excellency General Justo will give his verdict in the dispute respecting the State railways' rates on wine from Mendoza between San Juan and Buenos Ayres, as far as the rates injure the interests of British investors in Argentine railways?

Sir J. SIMON: This matter is receiving my attention and will continue to be
watched, but I do not consider that it would further the, interests of the British investors concerned to make at this stage the enquiry suggested by my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

WAGES REGULATION ACT.

Mr. T. SMITH: 26.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of cases that have been investigated by inspectors under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, during the present year, the number of prosecutions, and the total amount of fines?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): From the 1st January, 1934, to the 30th September the Inspectors under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act made enquiries in respect of the wages paid by 2,094 employers. During this period the Ministry instituted 51 prosecutions under the Act and the fines imposed in the cases where convictions were registered amounted to £107 15s. Od.

WARBLE-FLY PEST.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: 27.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in order to exterminate the warble-fly pest in cattle, he will take steps to encourage stock owners to dress their cattle with the derris-root preparation experimentally for five years; and then, if the results are satisfactory, will he make a compulsory order for its use thenceforward for a limited period?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am advised that derrisroot preparations have been shown to be highly efficacious in the destruction of warbles in cattle, and their use in reducing the prevalence of the pest is recommended in a leaflet issued by my Department for the guidance of farmers. The question of the issue of an Order requiring the dressing of cattle is under investigation.

MEAT IMPORT (REGULATION).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 28.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied with the progress which has been made during the past three months in reducing the imports of meat into this country, both from foreign and Dominion sources, to a sufficient degree to enable the livestock industry of this
country to carry on successfully; and, if not, what new steps lie proposes to adopt to obtain a reduction of such imports?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 32.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the retained imports of beef of all classes during the three months June-September, 1934, totalled 3,376,738 cwts., an increase of 259,113 cwts., or over 8 per cent., as compared with the same quarter of 1931, the latter being the quarter selected as the first quarter for the purpose of the graded programme in the Ottawa Agreements; and, having regard to these figures, if he is now in a position to make any statement with regard to the negotiations with foreign and Empire countries on the subject of beef imports into the United Kingdom?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am aware of the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) which relate to the three months July, August and September, 1934. The position regarding retained imports of beef of all classes in these months is as stated, a substantial reduction in imports from foreign sources having during that period been more than offset by increased imports from Dominion sources. Compared with the corresponding period of last year, however, total retained imports of beef in the third quarter of 1934 showed an increase of less than 1 per cent. It will be recalled that it was stated in the White Paper on the Livestock Situation (Cmd. 4651) issued in July last that an appreciable improvement in the prices of sheep had taken place, but that in the se of cattle the situation was such that special assistance to producers was felt to be necessary for the period to the end of March next, pending discussion on long-term policy. These discussions are now proceeding, as I said in my reply on 20th October to a question by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), with representatives of the supplying countries. The special assistance was embodied in the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Act, which is now in force.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can my right hon. Friend indicate when he will be likely to be in a position to answer a question with regard to future policy?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid not. Discussions are now in progress.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the reduction in retained imports of 1 per cent. indicates a reduction in the consumption of meat in this country?

Mr. ELLIOT: There was an increase of 1 per cent.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Do we understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly when he said that he accepted the figures of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams); if so, is it customary for his Department to accept any figures the hon. Gentleman gives him?

Mr. ELLIOT: If accurate figures are quoted from any quarter of the House, surely it is my duty to say that they are so.

MILK MARKETING SCHEME.

Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWN: 29.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider the recommendation of the Milk Reorganisation Committee that a guaranteed premium for milk produced by accredited producers should be borne by both producers and buyers; and whether he will refuse his sanction to any accredited producer's scheme that does not embody that principle?

Mr. ELLIOT: The recommendation to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers was made on the hypothesis that there would be brought into existence a Joint Milk Council representing producers, distributors, and manufacturers; and that the Council would decide the rate of the premium to be paid to accredited producers and the rate of the levy required. Paragraph 63 of the Milk Marketing Scheme as formally approved requires the Milk Marketing Board, as soon as they think it practicable, to prepare a Register of Accredited Producers, and to pay to every producer whose name is on that Register a "guaranteed quality premium" per gallon of milk sold by him. The Minister's sanction is not needed for any scheme adopted by the Board in compliance with that paragraph.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Does my right hon. Friend realise that under the present scheme the retailer can mix accredited milk with other milk and that the consumer suffers thereby while
the retailer is let off? Is my right hon. Friend taking any steps to stop anything of that sort?

Mr. ELLIOT: The House has handed over wide powers to the producers of the product, and it would be necessary in the first place to see whether the producers approve of the various actions of their representatives.

Sir GIFFORD FOX: Can my right hon. Friend say when this scheme will definitely be brought into operation?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid I cannot say. I believe there are discussions going on with the local authorities at present.

Lord SCONE: 31.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the stricture passed by Judge Sir Alfred Tobin upon the secret manner in which the Milk Marketing Board inflicts fines upon producers; and if he will represent to the Board that such practices tend to make marketing schemes in general, and the milk scheme in particular, suspect to the agricultural community?

Sir G. FOX: 34.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to recent judicial pronouncements on legal proceedings instituted by the Milk Marketing Board; and whether, in view of the possible effect of such pronouncements on public opinion, he will suggest to the Board the desirability of issuing an official statement on the whole subject?

Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in accordance with the procedure of the House to make reference in questions to the decisions of a county court judge, seeing that there is a stricture embodied in these questions?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member knows very well the Rule under which the House acts in regard to the conduct of a judge, and I do not think these questions disregard that Rule.

Mr. ELLIOT: I would refer my hon. and Noble Friends to the answer I gave on Thursday last to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine) of which I am sending them a copy.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON: 33.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether in any of the recent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, the cause or source of infection has been ascertained; and whether any of the cattle first affected in any of the outbreaks have been imported into this country?

Mr. ELLIOT: During the past three months, seven outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have occurred which could not be attributed to previous cases in this country. In none of these outbreaks was the source of infection definitely established, and in no case is there reason to believe that animals imported into this country were the first to
be affected.

BUTTER (MARKING).

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: 35.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the total number of prosecutions for infringements of the Butter Marking Order made under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, since its inception; and if not, whether he will arrange for the keeping of a record of future prosecutions

Mr. ELLIOT: No record is available of the total number of prosecutions for infringement of the Butter Marking and other similar Orders which various local authorities are empowered to enforce, and I have no power to call for a return.

Sir W. WAYLAND: Will the Minister seriously consider the withdrawal of Recommendation (e) of the Butter Marking Committee as it has left the door wide open to fraud upon the public?

Mr. ELLIOT: I should require notice of that question.

IMPORTS.

Mr. LAMBERT: 36.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will impose countervailing duties on imported agricultural products sold in this country at a lower price than in the country of origin?

Mr. ELLIOT: I would remind my right hon. Friend that it is open to the interests concerned to apply to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for the imposition of duties or additional duties on products imported into this country in the circumstances mentioned in the question.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if this policy were applied to coal our exports would cease instantaneously?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

MAIL CONNECTIONS (MERSEY TUNNEL).

Mr. BROCKLEBANK: 37.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the opening of the Mersey Tunnel has facilitated Post Office business; and, if so, in what way?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): The opening of the Mersey Tunnel has reduced the time of transit of mails between Liverpool and the Wirral Peninsula, thus slightly improving the mail connections to and from that district.

VANS (STREET OBSTRUCTION).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 38.
asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that there is sometimes unreasonable obstruction in the streets by postal vans; and what action the Post Office itself takes to check this?

Sir K. WOOD: I am aware of this complaint and am taking steps to avoid obstruction in the streets by postal vans.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Will my right hon. Friend consider changing over from horse-drawn vehicles to motor vehicles in London?

Sir K. WOOD: That has, of course, been very largely done.

TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Lord SCONE: 39.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider providing a telephone exchange for Path of Condie, Perthshire, as this district is so remote from existing exchanges that the rentals from such exchanges are prohibitive to the inhabitants?

Sir K. WOOD: I am making inquiries and will communicate with my Noble Friend as soon as they are completed.

Mr. WILM0T: 44.
asked the Postmaster-General to what extent it has been necessary to increase the number of night telephone operators following the recent reduction in charges for night calls; and whether the complaints with regard to overwork in this connection have now been dealt with satisfactorily?

Sir K. WOOD: The increase in telephone traffic in the evening has necessitated an increase in the number of operators and overtime work has now been considerably reduced. The whole question of staffing arrangements consequent upon this new development is now engaging my attention. I am having a return made of the number of additional operators who have been so far engaged and I will inform the hon. Gentleman when I have received the desired information.

Mr. WILMOT: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask if he will give an assurance that the complaints of ex-service men telephonists will be carefully watched?

Sir K. WOOD: I am giving due consideration to all aspects of the matter.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 50.
asked the Postmaster-General, whether his attention has been drawn to the hardship inflicted upon those telephone subscribers who paid a lump sum of £1 for the installation of hand microphones instead of making quarterly payments and who have therefore lost 8s. upon each hand microphone; and whether he will consider offering the subscribers more favourable terms?

Sir K. WOOD: My attention has been called to cases of the kind, but I regret that a modification cannot be made of contracts which would involve an actual refund of money already paid into the Exchequer. It has not been possible to apply the recent concessions to telephone subscribers retrospectively.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: Is the treatment of subscribers in the past who paid a lump sum down likely to be very much encouragement in the future to others to pay lump sums?

Sir K. WOOD: I fully recognise the case my hon. and gallant Friend has put forward, but I really cannot undertake to make any further concessions. Very large concessions have been made recently.

Mr. PETHERICK: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is a definite grievance here, and will he in the future avoid anything of this kind?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, I will certainly keep that in mind in any future policy.

PENNY POSTAGE.

Mrs. COPELAND: 42.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, bearing in mind the great success which the recent cheaper rate for telephone messages has achieved, he will reconsider the advisability of returning to the penny postage?

Sir K. WOOD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Deritend Division (Mr. Crooke) on Thursday last.

Mrs. COPELAND: As it is easy to get a penny stamp out of the Post Office stamp machines, will the right hon. Gentleman consider making it equally easy to get a three-halfpenny stamp out?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, but I am afraid my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have something to say as well.

Mr. LYONS: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, to save time, he will consider making a reduction in the cost of telegrams?

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider a reasonable reduction in trunk calls during the daytime?

Sir K. WOOD: This question has to deal with penny postage.

POSTAL ADDRESSES (ALTERATIONS).

Mr. HUTCHISON: 43.
asked the Post master-General whether a postmaster is only empowered to alter a postal address with the consent of the ratepayers; how many postal addresses have been altered in the last two years; and whether in every case these alterations have been approved by the ratepayers concerned and, if there are any cases of over-riding, whether he can give the names of the places in question?

Sir K. WOOD: Changes of postal addresses are avoided as far as possible. They become necessary either as essential features of schemes for improving public facilities or in the interests of efficient administration. A postmaster has no arbitrary powers in the matter and, subject to the considerations mentioned, due regard is always paid to local opinion. The further particulars asked for by my hon. Friend are not immediately avail-
able, and their compilation would involve a measure of expense which I do not think would be justified.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EMPIRE (ECONOMIC PLANNING).

Major BEAUM0NT THOMAS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will approach the Dominions with the object of appointing an Imperial Committee to examine and report on the future economic planning of the Empire?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I will bear my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion in. mind; but it will be remembered that the object which he has in view was the basis of the work of the Ottawa Conference in 1932, and that the machinery for effecting it was examined in detail by an Imperial Committee which was set up in February, 1933, and reported in April of that year.

Major THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave danger of important decisions being taken in the Dominions and elsewhere with regard to the setting up of industrial enterprises without due consideration to the interests of the Empire as a whole?

Mr. BALDWIN: While I have every sympathy with my hon. and gallant Friend in his question, the difficulty has not been at this end, so far.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES (TITLE OF DOMINION).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 46.
asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will take steps to restore to Wales the title of Dominion which was used in official documents up to the year 1800?

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 47.
asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will give consideration to the revival in Royal Proclamations and other official documents of the description of Wales as the Dominion of Wales which had been in use for 200 years up to the year 1800?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am not prepared to adopt the suggestion made by the hon. Members, to which effect could be given only by legislation.

Mr. DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the putting of some provision in the King's Speech at the opening of the next Parliament to remove this offence to the Principality?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think the notice would be all too short. The term "Dominion" had a very different connotation in 1800 from what it has to-day, and no change in the Royal Title could be made without the consent of the whole Empire; and if any alteration be suggested for Wales I shall put in a plea that England may not be forgotten.

Mr. DAVID EVANS: In view of the fact that the barren and obsolete title referred to in the two questions gave no powers at all to the Principality to control its own affairs, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in order to relieve the congestion of this House, he will consider legislation to give the reality of control to Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom; and will lie bear in mind the views of duly elected representatives of the Principality and not representatives of Manchester or Croydon?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

ACCOMMODATION (BUSH HOUSE, ALDWYCH).

Sir C. COBB: 51.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether his Department is negotiating for an interest in the premises near Bush House, Aldwych, London; and, if so, for what purpose?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the second part, the premises are being acquired primarily to relieve existing congestion in Somerset House and to provide for a concentration of Inland Revenue headquarters staffs.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH (AUDIT STAFF).

Captain ELLISTON: 60.
asked the Minister of Health whether the age of entry for accountancy appointments at the Ministry can be extended so that qualified members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants can compete for vacancies on the audit staff of the Ministry after they have attained the age of 21 years?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The District Audit Staff of the Ministry is recruited from candidates successful at open competitive examinations held by the Civil Service Commissioners, for which the maximum age limit is 19. These are examinations for the Civil Service generally, and it would be impracticable to extend the age limit for any one class of appointment. My right hon. Friend is satisfied, as the result of careful consideration, and after experience of the recruitment of candidates by other methods, and at higher ages, that this is a satisfactory way of providing an efficient District Audit staff.

Captain ELLISTON: Does the hon. Gentleman think it satisfactory that for a few years no member of his audit staff should have won their complete professional qualifications such as are required for all accountants in private practice?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I should be happy to discuss that point with my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that no member of the Civil Service can become a chartered or an incorporated accountant, and that young men with those qualifications cannot hope to secure positions under the Government; and is he aware that Government Departments are the only businesses in the whole of the country from which they are debarred?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I am quite aware of all that, but I cannot treat a particular class in a favoured way.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Does not the same regulation apply to medical men, who as a rule do not qualify until they are over 21?

Oral Answers to Questions — REGENT'S PARK.

Mr. BURNETT: 52.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the northern and western portions of the Botanical Gardens, Regent's Park, continue to present a dilapidated appearance; and whether his Department has funds to make the place tidy and will recondition these derelict parts and place them at the disposal of the general public to be enjoyed as gardens?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am aware of the conditions to which my hon. Friend refers. The funds provided this year for the improvement of the Inner Circle Gardens have been spent, and I propose to include a further amount in next year's Estimates for the treatment of these areas, and for the admission of the public to as much of the space as is practicable.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON MEMORIALS AND STATUES (CLEANING).

Mrs. COPELAND: 53.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether in view of the coming jubilee, he will consider the advisability of having the chief monuments, statues, etc., in London cleaned so as to enhance the appearance of the town?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: So far as the memorials and statues in London which are under the care of my Department are concerned, the existing arrangements which provide for their cleaning at regular intervals ensure that they are kept in a satisfactory condition. There are many others, of course, which are in the charge of local authorities.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would enhance the beauty of the town if, instead of cleaning them down, he cleared them out?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (VISITORS' FACILITIES).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 54.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he can state for what reason- the House of Commons is only open to the public on Saturdays and certain public holidays during such time as Parliament is not sitting; and whether, in view of the increasing number of visitors to London and the desirability of enabling as many visits as possible to the Palace at Westminster to take place outside the period when Parliament is sitting so as to avoid congestion, he will consult with the authorities concerned and arrange to open the buildings on every day except Sunday during the recesses?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I will consult the proper authorities in regard to my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I must confess that I foresee great difficulties in the
way of its adoption. It would also involve considerable increases in expenditure on attendants.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL MACES.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: 55.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether the Chancellor's Mace, stated to have been borne before King Charles I as he passed to execution, and saved by Mr. Butts during the burning of the Houses of Parliament in 1834, is still in existence or use; and whether it can be identified?

Mr. 0RSMBY-GORE: I understand that one of the Royal maces in the House of Lords dates from the time of Charles II and the other from that of William III. I have not been able to obtain any evidence that an earlier mace was saved by Mr. Butts on the occasion of the fire of 1834.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: In view of the archaeological importance of these maces would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman's Department to compile all that is known historically about the 11 maces which are called the Sovereign's maces?

Mr. 0RMSBY-G0RE: As my hon. Friend knows, the Clerk of the Works of this House has already published a historical note on the Parliamentary maces, and it is very difficult to know where, without considerable expenditure of time, one could possibly get any further data.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that besides the three Parliamentary maces there are eight others in the Tower also called "Sovereign's maces" about which little has been published, but which have an undoubted historical importance?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If my hon. Friend would approach the Fellows of the Society of Antiquaries, I think they might do something about it, but it would be very difficult for me to find an officer in my Department to undertake these rather difficult researches.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (CARPETS).

Mr. PERKINS: 56.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is
aware of the unsatisfactory quality of the carpets on the floor of the House; and whether he will state the price paid for these carpets and the country of origin?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The carpets were made in London. They are of the same make and quality as those previously supplied which have always proved quite satisfactory. The "shedding" which my hon. Friend has in mind is quite a natural process during the early life of any pile carpet and should soon cease.

Mr. PERKINS: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the best carpets are produced in Gloucestershire?

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that when he wants carpets it would be best to go to the carpet city of Kidderminster.

Mr. 0RMSBY-G0RE: As a, matter of fact, contracts for carpets for other Departments have been placed with Kidderminster, Axminster and other places.

Miss HORSBRUGH: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the good wear of jute carpets?

Oral Answers to Questions — CUSTOMS OFFENCES (PENALTIES).

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 58.
asked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to a recent case in which a man, guilty of a fraud on the customs of about £22, thereby became liable to a fine of £2,500 or 10 years' imprisonment; and whether, in view of this and similar cases, he will consider an amendment of the present law in order to make the punishment fit the crime?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): I am having inquiry made into the circumstances of the particular case to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, and will communicate with him in due course.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: Should not the fitting of the punishment to the crime be the object sublime?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

FOOD STANDARDS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSON: 59.
asked the Minister of Health
whether and, if so, when, he proposes to introduce legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the departmental committee on Food Standards?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot yet make any statement as to legislation on this subject.

LONDON REFUSE (DISPOSAL).

Sir COOPER RAWSON: 61 and 62.
asked the Minister of Health (1) whether his attention has been called to the interim report of the cleansing sub-committee of the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee on disposal of refuse; and whether that committee in accordance with its terms of reference enquires into up-to-date systems in operation outside London; and
(2) whether the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee's sub-committee inquiring into the systems for disposal of refuse includes any sanitary engineers or inspectors; and whether his expert advisers confirm the view expressed by the committee that controlled tipping is in general to be preferred to incineration, as opposed to the report of 1932 by the cleansing inspector to the Ministry of Health and more recent reports to the contrary issued by scientists and other authorities?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend is aware of the interim report. He understands that the Committee as a whole confined themselves to inspection of the services of the metropolitan borough councils, but several of the members and a number of officers who advised the Committee had inspected up-to-date systems in operation outside London. The Chairman of the sub-committee is a civil engineer, and in addition, the sub-committee has attached to it, in an advisory capacity, a number of medical officers of health and engineers of metropolitan borough councils. As regards the comparative methods of controlled tipping and incineration, my right hon. Friend is advised that, where controlled tipping can be and is properly carried out, it is a satisfactory method of disposal, but what method is most advantageous for any particular place must depend on local circumstances.

Sir C. RAWSON: Has the hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the very excellent system adopted by the Brighton Corporation, and has he visited it recently?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I am sure that evidence of that and other excellent systems was put before the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

RECONSTRUCTION SCHEME, DUNDEE.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 72.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the corporation of Dundee has under consideration a reconstruction scheme to cost £200,000; that the scheme involves the destruction of General Monk's house, the pre-Reformation dwelling of the choristers of St. Clement's, the Overgate, and other historical buildings; and if he will take steps to preserve what he can from this destruction?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I am making inquiries about the scheme referred to and will communicate the result of my investigations to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

MILK MARKETING SCHEME.

Marquess of CLYDESDALE: 73.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will adjust the provisions under the Milk Marketing Board as applied to Scotland in order to give more considerate treatment to producer-retailers in Scotland, in view of the fact that in many cases they are being considerably impoverished by the transport levy while other producers are profiting thereby?

Sir G. COLLINS: I have no authority to amend the provisions of the Scottish Milk Marketing Scheme except on consideration of reports by the Committee of Investigation for Scotland under Section 9 of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931. Complaints made by level producers, many of whom are producer-retailers, have been referred by me to that committee whose report has been received to-day and is now under consideration. The levy paid by farmers who are producer-retailers does not include any charge for the transport of milk.

Duchess of ATHOLL: In view of the great interest attached to this question in all parts of Scotland, will the right hon. Gentleman publish the report of the Investigating Committee?

Sir G. COLLINS: That matter is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (LABOUR CONDITIONS).

Sir A. KNOX: 74.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, as M. Maurette, Assistant Director of the International Labour Office, furnished a report recently on labour conditions in Japan, he will suggest to the office that a qualified representative should be sent on an analogous mission to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The inquiry to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers was arranged under the instructions of the Governing Body of the International Labour Organisation and in agreement with the Government concerned, and other inquiries of the same character would have to be conducted in a similar manner. My right hon. Friend will, however, note my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.

Sir A. KNOX: Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to that effect and suggest to the International Labour Office that it is a fitting subject for inquiry?

Viscountess ASTOR: Would not the best way be for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to go to Geneva and help the League on?

Sir A., KNOX: Is it not possible for the hon. Gentleman to answer my question?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (OVERTIME).

Mr. LECKIE: 75.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the amount of overtime that is being worked in various industries at present and in order to mitigate unemployment, he will make a special appeal to employers throughout the country to reduce this as much as possible by employing additional workers who are at present out of a job?

Mr. HUDSON: I cannot do better than repeat what was said on the subject by the Lord President of the Council on 5th October, in a speech which received widespread publicity. The Lord President appealed to every firm which is regularly working overtime to think out carefully whether, by organising their hours, they can eliminate regular overtime, and thereby give employment to additional workmen working the normal hours, and the Lord President further suggested that it is a national duty to make that effort.

Mr. HANNON: Flow many instances are there in which response has been given to the appeal made by the Lord President of the Council?

Mr. HUDSON: I do not think I have any figures with which to answer that question.

Mr. HANNON: Is it a fact that there is a widespread feeling that the Lord President's suggestion should be responded to in this way?

Mr. HUDSON: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

TEACHERS' PENSIONS.

Lieut.-Commander TUFNELL: 76.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can now state what progress has been made with the negotiations with the teachers' organisations as to the effect of the recent salary cuts upon pensions; and whether he has yet been able to make a proposal that has proved satisfactory to these organisations?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on the 1st November to the hon. Member for Walls-end (Miss Ward) a copy of which I am sending him.

Lieut.-Commander TUFNELL: In view of the answer which the Minister gave on that occasion, would he acknowledge the claim of these teachers who number 28,000, and many of whom are quite willing to pay their contribution? Would he take steps to remove a justifiable grievance?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I cannot add to the answer which I have given.

DUKE OF KENT'S WEDDING (HOLIDAYS).

Mr. THORNE: 79.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can give any information to the House relative to all elementary schools in England being given a full day's holiday on 29th November, the Duke of Kent's wedding day?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: A circular has been issued by the Board of Education to local education authorities and school governing bodies, informing them that His Majesty The King has expressed to the President of the Board of Education his desire that a whole holiday may be granted in all schools on the 29th November, the wedding day of His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent. My Noble Friend has expressed his confidence that effect will be given to His Majesty's gracious wishes by the authorities of all schools in England and Wales.

Mr. THORNE: May I take it for granted that local authorities will not be penalised in the way of grants?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Yes.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask my hon. Friend if this school will have a holiday on that day?

Oral Answers to Questions — DUBLIN HORSE SHOW (BRITISH ARMY OFFICERS).

Mr. ALBERY: 80.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether there is any official prohibition against British officers taking part in the Dublin Horse Show?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): No, Sir. Invitations have been received from the Royal Dublin Society for a British Army team to compete in the International Military Jumping Competition, which have not been accepted on the ground of interference with the requirements of military training. Applications from individual officers to compete under their own arrangements would be considered on their merits.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHOPS ACT, 1934.

Captain ELLISTON: 81.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
merit whether it is intended to issue an explanatory memorandum on the administration of the Shops Act, 1934, for the guidance of local authorities?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): An explanatory circular to local authorities on the subject of the Shops Act, 1934, is in course of preparation, and will shortly be issued.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR HORNS (SILENCE PERIOD).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 82.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can state to the latest convenient date the number of persons prosecuted for sounding motor horns after 11.30 p.m. in the Metropolitan area; how many of these were convicted; and how many fined?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Up to the present there have been no prosecutions by the Metropolitan Police under the regulations to which my hon. Friend refers. Between the 27th August, the date of commencement of the regulations, and the end of September, 1,134 verbal warnings were given. The number of verbal warnings given in October is not yet available.

Mr. MABANE: Can the Home Secretary say whether there have been any prosecutions of motorists for failure to give audible warning of their approach after 11.30 p.m.?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir.

Sir W. BRASS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not giving audible warning is in fact a danger when one car is passing another?

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING-PLACES.

Sir W. BRASS: 83.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the confusion which still exists in the public mind as to the exact rights of pedestrians and drivers at pedestrian crossings in the Metropolitan area, he will give special instructions to the police on traffic duty at these points to control both the pedestrians and the vehicles, and if necessary increase the number of police control points at peak periods of the day or night when pedestrian and vehicular traffic is at its height.

Sir J. GILMOUR: The police have had full instructions as to their duties when controlling traffic at points where
pedestrian crossings have been installed, and I think that the general experience is that the police are very helpful in indicating to pedestrians when to cross and when not to cross. The number of constables employed at traffic points is already greater at peak periods than at other times.

Sir W. BRASS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in certain parts of the Metropolis the police are stationed on the pavement at controlled crossings simply to watch and see whether the regulations are complied with or not, and do not control the traffic or the pedestrians?

Oral Answers to Questions — YOUTHS' CONVICTION, BLAENAU FESTINIOG.

Sir A. WILSON: 84.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the sentence of two months' hard labour, without the option of a fine, imposed upon two youths of the ages of 17 and 19 years, respectively, for malicious damage to property by the Blaenau Festiniog justices on 14th September, the youths not being legally represented and this being their first offence; and what action he has taken in the matter?

Sir J. GILMOUR: My attention was called to this case in September, and I immediately called for a report and communicated with the justices, but, after carefully considering both the representations made to me on behalf of these two defendants and a full report on the facts, I decided not to advise interference with the sentences which the justices had thought it right in all the circumstances to impose.

Sir A. WILSON: Was my right hon. Friend aware, when he made that decision, that these two boys had had no previous conviction whatever, and that the justices have shown by a subsequent public statement that they did not apply their judicial minds either to the question of applying the provisions of the Act—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot, at Question Time, go into the judicial minds of the justices.

Sir A. WILSON: In view of the unsatisfactory reply of the Home Secre-
tary, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the earliest convenient opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — POISONS LICENCES (AGRI-CULTURAL REQUISITES).

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: 85.
asked the Home Secretary whether any decision has been arrived at in regard to the proposal that poisons licences should not be granted to agricultural and horticultural tradesmen in connection with the sale of insecticides, weed-killers, etc.?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The question of the control to be extended to the retail distribution of poisons used in agriculture and horticulture is among the matters at present under examination by the Poisons Board. I understand that the board have invited the observations of associations of manufacturers, traders and others concerned upon a draft of the proposals to be later submitted to me, and will proceed to consider their recommendations when all the observations have been received.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: When my right hon. Friend comes to consider the proposals, will he remember that these sales have taken place through horticultural companies and firms for many years without complaint, and give very grave consideration to any change?

Oral Answers to Questions — STEAMSHIP "MOUNT OSSA" (FOREIGN SEAMEN'S ARREST).

Mr. ALBERY: 86.
asked the Home Secretary in what circumstances foreign seamen were arrested on board the steamship "Mount Ossa"; and whether their deportation resulted in any expenditure of public funds?

Sir J. GILMOUR: On arrival of the steamship "Mount Osso" at Brixham on the 7th August, the master of the ship applied to the immigration officer for leave to discharge 14 members of the crew who, owing to a dispute about wages, desired to leave the ship and return home. Leave to land for repatriation was given on the usual conditions. The men were not arrested, but I understand that the master and the agents arranged with the police to provide an escort to accompany the men to Southampton, whence they embarked on the following day for Havre.
The cost of the escort was paid by the shipping agents, and no part of it fell upon public funds.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRINTING WORKS ACCIDENT, HACKNEY.

Mr. THORNE: 87.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from his factory inspector in connection with the fatal accident to a man while working a machine on the premises of Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode, printers, Hackney; and whether the machinery was properly protected?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that this fatality occurred last Wednesday, and is being investigated, and that the inquest is being held to-day. I will communicate with the hon. Member when I learn the result.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Poor Law Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

The House divided: Ayes, 281; Noes, 35.

Division No. 380.]
AYES
3.50 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Copeland, Ida
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Albery, Irving James
Cranborne, Viscount
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.
Hepworth, Joseph


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Apsley, Lord
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Holdsworth, Herbert


Assheton, Ralph
Cross, R. H.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Crossley, A. C.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Atholl, Duchess of
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Horobin, Ian M.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Horsbrugh. Florence


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovill)
Howard, Tom Forrest


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Denville, Alfred
Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(Portsm'th,C.)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Dixey, Arthur C. N.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Bernays, Robert
Doran, Edward
Hurd, Sir Percy


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)


Blindell, James
Drewe, Cedric
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Bossom, A. C.
Duckworth, George A. V.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Boulton, W. W.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Duggan, Hubert John
Ker, J. Campbell


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Duncan. James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Dunglass, Lord
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Braithwaite. J. G. (Hillsborough)
Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Knight, Holford


Brass, Captain Sir William
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Knox, Sir Alfred


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Broadbent, Colonel John
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Leckie, J. A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Elmley, Viscount
Lees-Jones, John


Brown. Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Emmett. Charles E. G. C.
Leighton. Major B. E. P.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H. C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Liddail, Walter S.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Evans. David Owen (Cardigan)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Burnett, John George
Fermoy, Lord
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Butler, Richard Austen
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mabane, William


Butt, Sir Alfred
Fox, Sir Gifford
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Ganzoni, Sir John
McKeag, William


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McKie, John Hamilton


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Maclay, Hon, Joseph Paton


Castlereagh, Viscount
Goff, Sir Park
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Goodman. Colonel Albert W.
McLean. Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)
Magnay, Thomas


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Granville, Edgar
Maitland, Adam


Chamberlain,Rt.Hon.Str J.A.(Birm.,W)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Graves, Marjorie
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Greene, William P. C.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Clarry, Reginald George
Grimston, R. V.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Cobb. Sir Cyril
Guest. Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Meller, Sir Richard James


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Conant. R. J. E.
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cook, Thomas A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Molson. A. Hugh Elsdale


Cooper, A. Duff
Hartland, George A.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Moore-Brabazon Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Summersby, Charles H.


Moreing, Adrian C.
Ross, Ronald D.
Sutcliffe. Harold


Morgan, Robert H.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff. E.)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Munro. Patrick
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Todd. A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Salt, Edward W.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


North, Edward T.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Nunn, William
Sandeman. Sir A. N. Stewart
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Orr Ewing, I. L.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Patrick, Colin M.
Savery, Samuel Servington
Wardlaw-Mline, Sir John S.


Peake, Osbert
Scone, Lord
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Potherick, M.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wayland, Sir William A.


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst n
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Pike, Cecil F.
Smiles, Lieut -Col. Sir Walter D.
Williams, Charles (Devon. Torquay)


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Smithers, Sir Waldron
Williams. Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Somervell, Sir Donald
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Purbrick. R.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Pybus, Sir John
Soper, Richard
Winterton, RI. Hon. Earl


Radford, E. A.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wise, Alfred R.


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Spears. Brigadier-General Edward L.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Rathbone, Eleanor
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough. E.)


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Stevenson, James



Rea, Walter Russell
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Storey, Samuel
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Stourton, Hon. John J.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Thorne, William James


Banfield, John William
Jenkins. Sir William
Tinker, John Joseph


Batey, Joseph
John, William
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
West, F. R.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Davies, Stephen Owen
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)


Dobbie, William
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wilmot, John


Edwards, Charles
Mainwaring, William Henry



Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Paling, Wilfred
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Parkinson. John Allen
Mr. Groves and Mr. G. Macdonald.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Salter, Dr. Alfred



Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — BETTING AND LOTTERIES BILL [Lords]

(Except CLAUSE 1).

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Restriction of bookmaking on Tracks.)

Mr. PIKE: May I ask your ruling, Sir, for the general direction of the Committee, in view of the fact that Clause 1 is not coming downstairs for any further consideration, how far we shall be allowed to discuss Amendments that are relevant to Clause 1 or perhaps re-discuss matters that were discussed upstairs so far as they were relevant to Clause 2?

4.0 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not quite understand the hon. Member's question. The hon. Member will see as the Debate proceeds what action the Chair takes, but generally speaking, of course, it is quite clear that this Committee has nothing to do with Clause 1, which, I understand, has been Reported to the House.

Mr. WISE: We are discussing this Bill under an arrangement not undertaken before, and there are a great number of matters in Clause 1 which are very important to the rest of the Bill. Is it not possible for us to refer to the proceedings upstairs seeing that the bulk of Members have not had the benefit of taking part in the discussions upstairs? Therefore, would it not be possible, as this procedure has never been undertaken before, that the rule should be waived, and we should be entitled not only to refer to but to quote proceedings upstairs in Committee?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that I can give any further answer than what I have already given. There is no objection, as far as I know, and no rule against referring to or quoting the proceedings before a Committee upstairs. But this Committee must bear in mind, as I said just now, that Clause 1 is outside the
purview of this Committee altogether, except insofar as the Committee has to recognise that Clause 1 has been passed and Reported to the House.

Earl WINTERTON: Do I understand by this new procedure that this Committee is placed in a different position from what it would be in if Clause 1 had been before the House? It is usual when a Bill is in Committee to make full use of the relevance of another Clause. I was not quite sure whether the result of your Ruling is that Clause 1 is placed in a different position from what it would have been in if it had not been considered in Committee.

The CHAIRMAN: No; as far as I can see at the moment, this Committee is in exactly the same position as if it had just completed Clause 1.

Mr. WISE: If I may give one concrete example, there is very shortly to be discussed an Amendment on the Paper which relates to the fixity of the number of days' racing.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not expect me to give a Ruling in advance in reference to Amendments which may or may not be called.

Mr. WISE: Assuming this Amendment were made, and the Committee has not previously heard on how many days racing was possible—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not expect me to give a, Ruling on any assumption; he must wait until it comes to pass.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: May I respectfully ask you, Sir Dennis, what is the position in regard to a consequential Amendment to the Clause already passed?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not understand the meaning of a consequential Amendment to a. Clause which has been passed.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Any Amendment which has already been passed upstairs to Clause 1 if there is a consequential Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: There has not been any such Amendment. The Clause has been reported unamended.

4.5 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, at the end, to insert:
(ii) bookmaking on any race for motor vehicles run on a track licensed by the Royal Automobile Club for the running of motor vehicle races; or
I will deal with the Amendment very briefly. The Bill prohibits actual betting at a race meeting like that at Brook-lands. It seems rather hard that a Bill which has really nothing to do with such race meetings should impose such a hardship as that when betting takes place at a track like Brooklands some six times a year and is on an extraordinarily small scale. No one could say in such a case that there is any demoralising influence from off-the-course betting.

4.6 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Crookshank): The hon. and gallant Member moved the Amendment so briefly and so quietly that one would think there was not very much in the Amendment. As a matter of fact, it raises an extremely important point of principle which my right hon. Friend does not seem at all disposed to accept. The hon. and gallant Member says that there are only a few days' racing at Brooklands, and therefore there could not be very much harm in a little on-the-course betting. We are not legislating for to-day, but are casting a Bill which, we hope, will become an Act of Parliament for some considerable duration of time, and we are asked that bookmakers should be allowed on a track licensed by the Royal Automobile Club. I do not wish to ask a question to which the answer is obvious, but why on earth should the Royal Automobile Club have authority to issue licences to anybody at all? It is a perfectly proper body with a very distinguished and large membership, and performs very useful services, but I cannot believe that they are the right people to undertake complicated questions of rules and regulations in regard to licences in the matter of betting.
The Committee must recollect that the Bill is to regulate betting on all tracks, and that to give an exemption to the Royal Automobile Club would be to give something with regard to motor racing which this House has refused to give to a body like the Jockey Club with regard
to horse racing. On a previous Bill, Parliament deliberately refused to give the Jockey Club any such powers of control and set up, as the Committee will recollect, a statutory Racecourse Betting Control Board, although with regard to horse racing I should imagine it is a far, more authoritative body than the Royal Automobile Club is with regard to Brooklands. Let it be quite clear what this Amendment, if carried, would mean. It would mean that it would be open to the Royal Automobile Club to give a licence to betting at Brooklands every day of the year. There is no exception at all. Therefore it would mean that this House would be giving to a private body the power to regulate gambling though I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member means anything of the kind. What is more, having done that, it follows that this private irresponsible body—and I hope no one thinks that I am saying anything derogatory of the Royal Automobile Club; I merely say that this is not a function for it to discharge—would be in a position to determine in what circumstances certain conduct would or would not be considered a criminal offence, because that is part of the condition under which the betting would be carried on.
I know that there is a new Clause later on the Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member to give effect to some of the ideas he has in mind, but the details would require very drastic overhauling even if the Committee were prepared on this Clause to give the Royal Automobile Club this authority, and a moment's reflection will show that this function had much better be left in the Bill, and not given to a private body of that kind.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.10 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, after "clay," to insert "if."
This Amendment and the following Amendments in lines 16 and 20 are purely drafting. They are intended to make it quite clear that if the occupier of a track wishes to take advantage of proviso (ii),
in Sub-section (1) of this Clause, he must comply with both paragraphs, that is to say (a) and (b).

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 16, leave out "if".

Leave out "calendar".

In line 20, leave out "if".—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

4.12 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment—in page 2, line 26, leave out from "days," to the first "on," in line 28 —standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Derby (Sir J. Sandeman Allen), the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans) and other hon. Members, is one which I am not inclined to select on the ground that I find it difficult to understand exactly What it means or what the effect of it would be, but I gather that it has some relation to Clause 9 which they desire to have left out of the Bill. If that is so, it is a matter which probably could be left until we come to the discussion on Clause 9, but if the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff wishes to do so, I will give him an opportunity of explaining the Amendment as it stands.

4.13 p.m.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: I am much obliged for your Ruling, Sir Dennis, and I respectfully submit this point, that the principle of the fixity of days is raised in Clause 9 for the first time, though it is also mentioned in Clause 2, and the words I desire to omit by my Amendment are—
appointed in accordance with this Part of this Act as the days on which betting facilities may be provided.
If Clause 9 were subsequently omitted from the Bill, these words would have no sense at all, and as this is the first opportunity of raising the principle of the fixity of days, it was thought advisable to put down an Amendment at this stage.

Mr. HANNON: Will it not be difficult to discuss Clause 9 if these words are retained in the Clause?

4.14 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO: Under Clause 1, -which we have already passed, there can: be no betting by way of book-making on a Good Friday, Christmas Day or Sunday. Then, even if Clause 9 were
taken out of the Bill, these words would still be necessary.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Baronet has not covered the whole point concerned in this matter. With regard to what the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) said as to the inability to discuss Clause 9 when we come to it if we left in these words in this Clause, I do not think that is the case at all. It would be an absurd limit to which to push the Rule to say that a subsequent Clause should not be considered because of some definite reference to it in an earlier Clause. The hon. Members therefore need not, I think, fear that their arguments on Clause 9 will be curtailed as a result of passing these words in Clause 2. In these circumstances, I am only confirmed in the opinion which I at first expressed, that these are not Amendments properly to be selected here, and the necessity for altering this Clause in view of what may be done in Clause 9 only justifies our procedure in which we have a Report stage. Then will be the time to make Amendments here which may be rendered necessary by something done on Clause 9.

Mr. HANNON: Do I understand that when we come to Clause 9 there will be full freedom for debate in regard to the particular points brought to the notice of the Committee in this Amendment, and that we shall not be precluded from a fullness of discussion by these words being accepted in the text of the Bill?

The CHAIRMAN: I prefer to put it in another way. The discussion on Clause 9 will not be curtailed or prejudiced by reason of these Amendments not having been selected at this stage.

Captain EVANS: Do I gather that it is the intention, as soon as the Amendment to Clause 9 is reached, to allow a general discussion on the Amendment that Clause 9 be omitted from the Bill?

The CHAIRMAN: Oh no, certainly not. The hon. and gallant Member knows that to omit a Clause to a Bill is not an Amendment in the Committee stage. He can put down Amendments to the Clause and hon. Members, if they wish to do so, can oppose the Clause.

Mr. WISE: Would it be possible now to raise a point of Order which I put
originally, seeing that you rule that Clause 9, which is the one dealing with fixity of days, will not be called?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I have not ruled that Clause 9 will not be called. I have no power not to call it.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 33, to leave out the words "and, if he is not the occupier of the track, the occupier also."
This is a manuscript Amendment dealing with an important point. The onus of proving that a contravention had occurred within the knowledge of the occupier would, under the terms of the judicial procedure, devolve upon the prosecution and not upon the defendant. I submit that it would be unfair for the Clause to be carried with the inclusion of these words, and I ask the Minister to accept the Amendment.

Mr. PIKE: As I explained upstairs, It appears that these words, if left in the Bill, would entail very considerable duties upon the police, and certainly might entail very serious consequences as far as the innocent occupiers are concerned. I admit that there is a proviso which enables an occupier of a track who is charged with an offence by reason of a contravention of this Clause to put up a defence that the contravention occurred without his knowledge. When dog tracks are run on nights when betting is not legalised, there will be betting by touting. There will not be one bookmaker, but thousands of bookmakers walking about the dog tracks each betting with known persons by code methods, and it will be utterly impossible for the occupier of the track to know what is going on between client and client. It will actually be between client and private bookmaker. If you are to haul before the magistrates an occupier of a track simply and solely because, once, twice or three times, these private betting negotiations are discovered to have been carried on, his character will be besmirched and possibly his livelihood will be lost, when he is completely innocent and has done his best to prevent anything of the sort being carried on. The very betting propensities of the average Britisher who visits the dog tracks will demand a certain fraternity springing up on non-
betting nights to satisfy his convenience. If you place the onus on the occupier of being responsible for every conversation which goes on between one client and another client, who will be the private bookmaker, it will be putting far too great a responsibility upon his shoulders. It would be far better if these words were left out of the Bill. It is not that the occupier of the track will not do his best to put down betting on non-betting nights—he will—but, if you make him responsible for every bet which takes place on the track, you will drive a very unpalatable and distasteful form of gambling, which does not already exist on the streets, on to the streets of this country, and possibly among the younger generation and the women folk. If the Bill is to prevent the evils of betting from growing, the words should be deleted. The Clause would be improved and the effects of the Bill also if the manuscript Amendment were accepted.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: So that there shall be no misunderstanding, I wish to repeat on the Floor of the House the statement which I made on the Second Reading, namely, that one can only speak for oneself on the details of this Measure. On general principles there may be agreement, but on certain details hon. Members are at liberty to speak as they like. As to the present Amendment, the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) failed to repeat the provision which follows immediately after the Sub-section to the effect that, if the owner of the track can prove that the contravention took place without his knowledge, he escapes any responsibility. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) and the hon. Member for Attercliffe are stretching their imagination and their optimism if they imagine that greyhound organisations or companies will have greyhound racing on days when there is no betting. They told the Cora-mission very definitely that "unless betting takes place greyhound racing will go out to-morrow morning." Therefore, the assumption lurking behind the Amendment is that associations are merely going to run their greyhounds so that people may see a wonderful bit of sport. I do not think that that will happen. I do not think that hon. Mem-
bers need have any fear. If the occupier opened his track and brought out his greyhounds and people went to the track, and there was no intention to bet at all, and then a contravention took place, I should charge the occupier with having invited it, although I do not think that such a thing will happen. I am therefore against the Amendment.

4.25 p.m.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): A very similar Amendment was moved in the Committee stage on the first Clause of the Bill, and, as I took leave to point out to hon. Gentlemen, if these words were left out, and the proviso which really goes with it, as the hon. Gentleman opposite pointed out, were left out, the result would be that the occupier, even if he had any amount of knowledge that betting was going on, would not be guilty of an offence. This has nothing to do with the principle of the Bill and is one of those things which, when studied, must appear to be ridiculous, for there is not anybody really who can believe that the occupier will be allowed to go scot free when possibly he is the person reaping a great deal of financial advantage from carrying on the racing tracks. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the occupier will be made responsible for every conversation on the track. He will unless he can prove that he did not know about the conversation, and, if he is prepared to discharge the onus provided for by the proviso, he will not be guilty of an offence.
I think that the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway hardly realised the implication of one thing he said. He finished up by saying that the effect of these words would be to drive on to the streets a very undesirable form of gambling. Let us just see what that means. It means that you are going to drive on to the streets something, according to the hon. Member's hypothesis, which the occupier does not know anything about. If it be done so quietly and secretly that the occupier knows nothing about it, I cannot believe that it will be a very widespread practice or worth talking about as something which will be driven on to the streets to make the occupier guilty of the offence. I should think that everybody, whether in support of the
principle of the Bill or not, will agree with me that the occupier could not possibly be allowed to escape the hand of the law merely because he was the occupier, when all the time he might be a participant in the profits of the illegal practice.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman apply his mind to this possible event arising? The occupier of a track unconsciously permits the running of a track upon which betting takes place on two or three occasions on non-betting days. This man is apprehended under this Clause as being guilty of allowing the contravention of the Act. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that any occupier, no matter how not guilty he may be, can go before a court of magistrates on three occasions and still receive their admission that he was not guilty of a contravention under the proviso? Is there any possibility of the same man being charged on three occasions with an offence of which lie is personally not guilty and defending himself under the proviso of the Act and getting away with it? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that that will be possible?

4.29 p.m.

Brigadier - General CRITCHLEY: I should like to oppose the Amendment. Unless the Clause stands as provided it will leave a great loophole. It is rather a pity that the question of days of betting was not confined to days of racing, but, as that cannot be, I think that the strongest penalties should be laid down in respect of any betting found to take place on days on which betting is not allowed. Therefore, I oppose the Amendment.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. WISE: The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said that it was inevitable that days of racing would take place on which there would be no betting. The Committee ought to know that there is a custom of running trial races on dog tracks, and under this Clause as it stands if one of the attendants employed on that dog track chose to make a private book on the result of the trials his employer would be faced with the possibility of having to prove that he had no knowledge of the
making of that book. The Committee ought to bear in mind all the implications of the Clause, and the one which I have just mentioned is worthy of consideration. Betting could take place and certainly will take place even on non-betting days. It is ludicrous to suppose that where you have an assembly of Englishmen to see a race, trial or otherwise, there will not be betting. In the case that I have mentioned the employer would be faced with the necessity of proving that he had no knowledge of the betting.
With all due respect to the Attorney-General, I think that the constant demand made upon the citizen to prove his innocence, leaving it occasionally to the prosecution to prove his guilt, is very dangerous. I suppose we shall shortly see the Attorney-General defending a procedure under which in a murder charge the judge will simply say to the accused: "Prove to me that you did not kill him, otherwise you will be hanged." That is exactly what the Attorney-General is asking the Committee to do. He is asking them to compel a man to prove his innocence instead of putting the onus on the prosecution to prove his guilt. That is a dangerous proceeding. It is true that it is not without precedent, but wherever the precedents exist they are bad ones. It is right that the House of Commons should occasionally stand up as a protection for the accused person. Hon. Members opposite on both sides of the Gangway protested very vehemently the other day against increasing the rigours of the law. I hope that we shall find them as zealous in defence of possibly equally innocent citizens who are charged with betting as they were in the defence of citizens who may be charged with the offence of sedition.

9.34 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I should not like to allow one statement of the hon. Member to go without a reply. He says that the Attorney-General may one day be supporting procedure in a murder case where the man has to prove himself not guilty. That seems to me to be very fantastic. The hon. Member has gone so far in search of an illustration for his argument as to reduce it to an absurdity. If he puts that forward as his argument then his case is absurd. He has much better argument than an illus-
tration of that sort. The reason why the occupier is the person who is to be saddled with the prima facie responsibility is because he is responsible for looking after the racecourse of which he is the occupier. He is the person in charge of the course and under whom the employés work. It is not a question of a bet between A and B but a question of bookmaking being carried on on a course illegally. We can, with some degree of fairness, without doing any violence to the administration of our criminal system, say that if the occupier of a course is so unfortunate as to have bookmaking going on upon his course it is not a great hardship if he is asked to satisfy the court that he knew nothing about it. Otherwise, the consequences which were mentioned a few moments ago will follow. It is much more satisfactory to make the occupier face the responsibility of saying that he did not know bookmaking was going on than to punish other people for carrying on an offence of which the occupier had knowledge, which would be the inevitable consequence of leaving out the words.

Mr. WISE: Can the Attorney-General tell us if there is any legal definition of bookmaking? Under the law if a man took a bet from more than two or three persons he would in fact be making a book and carrying on bookmaking.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the hon. Member will look on page 16 of the Bill he will find the definition that he desires.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: This discussion is very interesting, but we have already put in the Bill so far as betting is concerned almost identical words. It seems to me rather absurd to take out words at this point when they have already been passed by the Committee upstairs.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

4.37 p.m.

Mr. RHYS: I want to raise a question of importance on this Clause. I happen to be one of the Members of Parliament for the county of Surrey, in which the great racing track at Brooklands is situated, and I should like to ask whether motor racing is to be singled out as a
special category for the purposes of the Bill. As I read the Bill—I think there is a good deal of confusion about it—it would be possible for the licensing authority to refuse to license Brooklands for a racing track if any betting took place there. I do not know whether motor racing is regarded as a sport or not. To many people it is; to me it is not. In a matter of this importance we ought to have a clear pronouncement from the Government whether betting will be prohibited at Brooklands motor racing track or any other recognised racing track. There is a good deal of apprehension in the matter and if my right hon. Friend could give me an assurance on the point he would allay the anxiety.

4.39 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: It has been made quite clear that the limit of betting days for ordinary bookmaking will apply to that and other courses where there are other sports. The fact remains that the Government have deliberately decided that the totalisator shall not be extended further than horse racing courses, where it exists at present, and dog racing tracks in the future. That is the limit and it will not be available for other forms of sport. I think that answers my hon. Friend.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: The reply of the Home Secretary only relates to the totalisator. He has not answered the question as to the position of Brooklands in respect of betting if this Bill becomes law.

Sir J, GILMOUR: The position of Brooklands will be the same as any other place where betting takes place. It will be limited as on other courses. The only difference is that neither Brooklands nor other sporting places will have the totalisator. I want to make that point clear.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: If the local authorities decide that they do not want to allow any betting to take place on the motor racing course at Brooklands can they prohibit it altogether?

4.42 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The local authority or, to be more accurate, the licensing authority is only concerned with licences for betting purposes. You can
have as many races as you like of all kinds anywhere, but the question is betting. With regard to betting, the licensing authorities, as my right hon. Friend has explained, will license certain days on which betting and bookmaking will be allowed. On the other days events may take place if it is so desired but there can be no betting. Totalisators under the Bill are only allowed for horse racing courses and dog race tracks and there will be no permission to have totalisators anywhere else. My right hon. Friend put it as clearly as possible, but if the hon. and gallant Member wants it to be put again we will repeat it. I think it is quite clear.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: As one to whom it is not at all clear I should like further explanation. The Under-Secretary says that it is clear. We are talking not about dog racing but motor racing, and the hon. Member refers us by inference to the Clauses of the Bill. Let us suppose that the Surrey County Council have fixed appointed days for Wimbledon and that for the sake of argument they have fixed Monday and Wednesday. Those automatically would be the appointed days for Brooklands. At Brooklands they race on Saturdays. It would appear that because the licensing authority, for the convenience of Wimbledon, have fixed Monday and Wednesday the people at Brooklands will not be permitted to bet on Saturday. Is that explanation - perfectly clear or not?

4.44 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The licensing authority under the Bill will lay down certain days in their area on which betting can take place at the tracks. Bookmaking will only be allowed to take place on the licensed day. The totalisator is only to be allowed for horses and dogs and nowhere else. The question as to the particular days that may be allotted by the licensing authorities for the particular interests who have sporting events on tracks falls to be discussed in the later stages of the Bill.

Sir W. BRASS: Would it be possible for the licensing authority to set apart two days of the week for dog racing in Surrey and one day, an entirely different day, say, Saturday, for motor racing? That is what we want to know.

Captain CROOKSHANK: No. They will only license betting days.

CLAUSE 3.—(Restriction of totalisator betting and other pari-mutuel betting.)

4.45 p.m.

Mr. R. J. RUSSELL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, leave out "on any track."
This Amendment raises a very important matter as it affects the national games in which we are all interested. During recent years there has grown up a method of coupon betting which already has had considerable effect on football and is in danger of having even greater effect. I want to deal with the off-the course betting by means of coupons, ranging in value from 2d. upwards. It is a very valuable business, it affects the very poor, and large profits are made out of it. The opinion of those responsible for football administration in this country should be emphasised. I am not sanguine enough to expect that all hon. Members have read the report of the Royal Commission, but considerable evidence was given before that Commission by those who are responsible for football in this country. The Football Associations of England, Wales and Ireland put forward their views and in each case they asked very definitely that some action should be taken to cut out this coupon, or off-the-course, betting from any association with football. The Scottish Football Association said:
The Scottish Football Association holds the view that the national value of the game is of sufficient importance to warrant the complete prohibition of coupon betting on football matches and that credit coupon betting, including pools and every other system of betting on the results of football matches, should be made illegal.
That is also the opinion of the Football Association and the Welsh Football Association. This kind of betting however has further implications, and it has been stated that several cases are known where efforts have been made to bribe players to lose games in order to assist the organisers of football coupons. A system which takes from the very poor and gives large profits to those who organise this coupon betting, and which is directly in opposition to the welfare of
the game itself, should not be tolerated by this Committee. If the Amendment was carried it would cut out at once all this coupon betting, which has grown to such dimensions in regard to football and which, indeed, shows a tendency also to become connected with cricket.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I desire to support the Amendment for reasons which I gave partially on the Second Reading of the Bill. The original Bill contained in Clause 3 the total extinction of all kinds of coupon betting, racing pools, football pools or cricket pools, and as soon as the original Bill was printed the people responsible for football pools convened a conference which appointed a sub-committee. This sub-committee got to work quickly. Who they approached, or how they approached, is still a mystery as far as I am concerned, but the pressure brought to bear on the Minister either inside or outside the House was such that the offending Clause, which would have stifled football pools, was removed from the Bill. On the Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman made little or no reference to the deletion of this very important Clause. The Royal Commission examined this proposal very meticulously, hearing important witnesses and collecting all the information at their disposal, and their unanimous decision was that pari mutuel betting on football should be abolished.
I would like to know what the Attorney-General thought about the deletion of this important Clause, and what the President of the Board of Education thought about it. I am still wondering why that very good Nonconformist, the President of the Board of Trade, should have supported the deletion of football pools from the Bill. So far there has been no reply, but I am assuming that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us today why, immediately pressure was brought to bear, he submitted to that pressure and deleted from the Bill the Clause which abolished football pool's. On the Second Reading of the Bill I read a cutting from the "Sunday Dispatch" which was very relevant to the subject and which proved that all the innocent investors in football pools were not only buying a pig in a poke but were being deliberately robbed and plundered by those who were organising these pools
for their own profit. I noticed, recently, that these pools have been so successful that the promoters can now afford to go to Luxemburg and tell us all about them over the wireless on Sunday nights, of course at the expense of those who pay their 2d. and 6d. Curiously enough they always open their programme with the tune "We are in the Money." They are in the money—it is a very appropriate tune.

Mr. HANNON: Is the hon. Member telling the Committee that the promoters of football pool betting in this country go to Luxemburg and give broadcasts?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Every Sunday night this actually takes place, after the British stations have closed down. This commenced many weeks ago, and as the weeks go by more and more football coupon companies are taking advantage of the wireless to advertise their wares. There are sound reasons why they can do this. Here is a business where the profits are unlimited, quite unlike the Betting Control Board who are limited to 10 per cent. While the right hon. Gentleman limits greyhound racing companies to 6 per cent. these football companies can take 60 per cent., and nobody can say anything. Within recent memory newspapers were running football competitions. They gave a dozen teams or so and the lucky fellow who named 12 winners might get £1,000 or £5,000. These competitions were rendered illegal, and most people thought it was right, but now, as a result of the deletion of the original Clause of this Bill, the same person who used to send newspapers to the office with a Chance of winning £5,000 can get the same coupon from the same newspaper and send 2d. or 6d. to Liverpool or Edinburgh and it is within the law. It is an extraordinary situation, and I should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman is going to say about it. The Royal Commission tell us how easily it can be done, how it was attracting not only the mature man and woman but that juveniles were indulging in what is a speculation. The juvenile thinks with the mature person that he is getting a> square deal. The finances of football pools are such that they scandalise any-one who examines them.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is now getting beyond not only
his Amendment but anything that is done in the Bill.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I bow to your Ruling, but I thought that pari mutuel betting includes the positive and negative side, and as this Amendment negatives pari mutuel betting, which includes football pool betting, that it was relevant to make reference to the companies running these pools.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I think this point was also raised on the Second Reading of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has explained the position, and I now think he is in order.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I read an extract from a letter sent to the "Times" on the 28th May this year, to show the development of this pool business. It reads as follows:
On the occasion of the match between Lancashire and Somerset at Old Trafford last week there was distributed to spectators leaving the field an envelope containing a description of Britain's First Cricket Pool. The claim was made that this Cricket Totalisator Pool' presents the follower of cricket with an opportunity to make money in summer to the same extent as the football follower made in the winter.
Having commenced with football, and made a real financial success of it, these enterprising pool merchants are now going in for cricket, so that there is to be no lull in their pools during winter and summer. Here is a cutting from a newspaper in regard to racing pools, and Windsor is the race referred to. It says "£1,000 for 3d." I have dozens of such cuttings taken out of newspapers all calculated to catch the uninitiated. On one Sunday a few weeks ago I took cuttings from newspapers showing the development of this kind of thing and the incitement there is to gambling. The Liverpool Tote Limited advertised a £1,000 free competition, Mr. Murphy advertised a total pool of £8,584—he did not say how much he got—and Bart Sharp, Bold Street, Liverpool, also advertised several pools. According to the figures that these people have published, since the football season started their income has more than doubled, and it is fair to assume that the profits of the proprietors have more than doubled also.
Let me come back to the Royal Commission's recommendation. It definitely recommended that these pools be abolished. The Football Association of England and the Football Association of Scotland, and indeed every independent person who gave evidence before the Commission, definitely said that football pools ought to be ended. When the Government are dealing with various classes of gambling it seems to me absurd that they should allow this thieving and swindling to continue. There is the financial side of the situation. I have seen advertisements in which proprietors are prepared to pay 7s. to 9s. in the £ to persons who collect the coupons and the money. On top of that they take considerable sums for advertising and fer personal expenses. So when the balance-sheets reach the final stage the poor investor in the pool gets about 7s. for every £ sent in. The two important companies in Scotland, I believe, have been prosecuted three or four times for this form of ready-money betting. Of course ready-money betting is illegal, but they have devised a system whereby what has the semblance of credit betting is possible, and credit betting, of course, is legitimate.
As a result of the evidence submitted to the court in Scotland the figures worked out as follows, I am taking the report of the accountant for the company. There was invested a sum of £10,000. There was paid to commission agents for collecting pool lists £3,500, for advertising in newspapers, etc., £1,500, and the wages and office expenses, printing, postage, etc., amounted to £1,000. Then there was a 10 per cent. deduction for the promoter, with a minimum of £400, and there was left £3,600 to be divided out of the £10,000 sent in by clients. So by all the methods of collecting the odd coppers and shillings of the working classes, with all the suggestion of something for nothing, the investors are getting less than 7s. for every £ they send in to these peoples offices. I had one of the original employés of the biggest firm in Liverpool at my house. He told me how well-off were the three people who started the firm. They had only £100 or £200 to begin with, but at the end of 12 months they were running their Rolls-Royces. No wonder! There is no limitation to their profits; they just take as much from these pools as they feel they dare do,
and they give their clients the rest. The Home Secretary is limiting greyhound racing, limiting the profits there. Greyhound tracks may go out of existence, but so long as profits are unlimited foot ball pools will come into existence at an alarming rate; they will grow and grow and still grow again. I want to know why the Home Secretary feels that the football pool business should continue when newspapers have been prevented from advertising their own competitions, and when they can advertise and receive revenue from the advertising of these private pool combinations which the Royal Commission recommended ought to be wiped out of existence.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Questions have been raised in the course of the Debates on this Bill about interference with liberty. That does not apply to this Amendment. If there are those who wish to put their money into the hands of these people under the football coupon system, if they wish to take that risk, knowing some of the facts that have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), they must take the risk. But the whole case for the Bill rests upon three points: The Bill has been recommended to the House and to the country first of all because the inquiry of the Royal Commission showed that there were serious social consequences. The second point upon which emphasis was laid was that, whatever was done for the adult population, the youth of the country ought to be protected; and the third basis of the Bill was that we should not allow any part of the people of this country, and particularly the youth of the country, to be exploited for purposes of private gain. A great many who do not hold my views about what I call the gambling evil would associate themselves with me on that third basis. Those are the grounds upon which the Bill was brought before the House and the country.
I give full credit to the Government for tackling so thorny a matter. My complaint against them is that their courage failed them at a critical point. It is not as if they disapproved this principle, for they approved it. When the Bill was first introduced they said they were going to deal with this matter as well as the rest. It is not as if, looking at the several considerations, they said: "This is not
a social evil that ought to be dealt with." By the very fact of introducing their Bill including wording that would have allowed us to deal with this evil they admitted that the evil ought to be dealt with by legislation. It seems to me that the Home Secretary is left with almost an impossible task to show to the country that the rest of the Bill should be carried through, but that this part of the original Bill should not be adopted.
The extent of this evil is amazing. The figures have been already emphasised by the hon. Member for Don Valley. But there was a case of the Edinburgh bookmaker who was prosecuted in 1930. Then it was shown that in February of 1930, the number of coupons circulated in the first week was 110,000, in the second week 110,000, in the third week 116,000, in the fourth week 118,000, and in the fifth week 116,000. The takings for the first week, by one firm, were £920. When this matter was discussed upon the Second Reading I took the figures that had been submitted by the Association dealing with the promotion of football coupons. They tried to plead that the amount that they spent in postage made some claim upon the consideration of the House. The facts were reported in the "Times" of 24th April. The total return in respect of payments to the Postmaster-General for a week was £14,583. The total return in respect of expenditure with the Postmaster-General for a season of 37 weeks was £5,500,000. That meant 700,000 clients per week.
I do not think this House is much concerned if the adult population likes to spend its money in this way. If an adult takes his money and puts it down the sink that is his concern and he must suffer the consequences. But in this case we are faced with the fact that it is a temptation to young people, that yon have in this system the simplest form of gambling, and that this is the apprenticeship to gambling in this country. We shall be discussing later an Amendment to be moved by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) on the question of lotteries. That is a matter which touches the adult population more than does this football coupon betting. It is not as if, in this matter, the appetite is developed by the youngster himself. I have an instance of a boy in my own county who sent in an inquiry in respect
of one of these coupon pools many years ago. He is now a very much older man. He is not a Member of this House. At intervals, sometimes of a week, sometimes of a month, a communication comes to him because once he made an application under one of these schemes. There is the tempting proposal put before possible clients.
When the promoters have these vast sums they have the machinery for poisoning the life of the nation, in so far as the boy or girl at the most formative period of life is concerned. If anyone grows up to be a victim of the gambling habit everyone knows that he is useless to society, to his church and to any organisation with which he is associated. I am not now emphasising the evils of this system. It was the Royal Commission that did it. The Royal Commission was not composed of Puritans like myself, or those who were anxious to put their noses into other people's business. It was Commission made up of those who commanded great confidence in this country, and they came to the conclusion that the evil ought to be dealt with. They were unanimous in their recommendation. In 1920 this House thought that this was an evil that ought to be dealt with. That is why there was introduced a Football (Ready Money) Betting Bill. If that Bill had been carried into effect this evil would never have arisen. But the gentlemen who are exploiting the community have found a way of evading the purposes of Parliament. By a device which was described by the hon. Member for Don Valley they have stultified the work of this House and have undone the purpose of this House. The Government have now an opportunity of carrying out what were the obvious intentions of Parliament 14 years ago.
We want to know on what grounds this should not be done? Does the Home Secretary doubt that he will have to deal with it some time? The evasion of difficulties is not the carrying on of government, and this difficulty will have to be dealt with somehow. The conscience of the country will arise and insist that it should be tackled. How long then is this financial scandal to be allowed to continue Money being poured into these pools, not by the well-to-do but by people who can ill afford it. If rich people go to racecourses and spend their £5 or £50 or
2100, very well, that is their concern, but these contributions come for the most part from young people, apprentices and the like, to whom the difference of A few pence in the week means a difference in the home. The money spent in this way is largely taken out of the money which ought to go to the mother for the maintenance of the household. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the winnings?"] Can the hon. Member show that these people have a fair deal? The answer in any case is that while the winnings may go in a large amount to one person, the losses will fall upon the many, and I do Lot think that the hon. Member will be able to find anyone who is better off in consequence of the winnings. The remarkable feature of this is that although we find the names of winners of large amounts advertised, very often those whose circumstances are suddenly changed in this way are none the better for it. Frequently they spend all their time and opportunity in trying to win again, and lose what they have already gained.
However, that is an argument into which I was drawn by the interruption. The case for this Bill includes the case for dealing with this evil and the fact that it has not been dealt with in the Bill has robbed the Government of a great deal of support which they might have had. They have to rely in this matter upon the public interest as against vested interests. Vested interests are always vigilant and always concentrated. They can speak in a timely way and bring great power to bear. But the public interest is diffused and very often cannot speak until it is too late. It is often inarticulate. In those who are concerned with the public interest there is, however, a tremendous resource upon which the Government could have called in connection with this Bill, and they would have been able to call upon it much more effectively had they taken a bold line on this matter and said as they have said in reference to the rest of the Bill: "Here is a matter which has been carefully inquired into, and in regard to which a great number of witnesses have been examined; those who have made the investigation, realising the serious social consequences involved, present this recommendation and our course is to take
our chance in carrying that recommendation into law."
I very much regret that the Government should have gone back upon their first intention. I very much regret that they are going to leave unchecked this financial ramp, as a result of which, largely out of pennies coming from poor homes certain people are fattening into great riches. The Home Secretary will have to direct his mind to this question: "Are these appeals still to be made through the post; are confiding people to pour their money into these pools in such vast sums, while those who are at the centre of affairs can at their own volition, and without any control whatever, decide how that money is to be dealt with, and can if they like put three-quarters of the money into their own pockets and distribute the other quarter among the dupes who have sent it in, while there is no one to say them nay"? Surely that is a situation which the Home Secretary cannot tolerate,. The police know about it, and are concerned about it in some parts of the country. For the reasons that I have given, following upon the very able statement of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) I support the Amendment. Although I am anxious to have the Bill I am bound to support the Amendment. I want the Bill even if it does not deal with this evil. I made that point clear upon the Second Reading but, as I have said, it is an evil which will have to be dealt with sometime, and the Government would have been in a much stronger position if the whole ground had been covered and if attention had been paid by them to all the recommendations of the Commission which they themselves set up to inquire into this question.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. DICKIE: I do not know to what extent it affects the validity of the argument of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), but he stated that the total return to the Post Office in respect of these pools was £5,500,000 in a season. I have here the figures from which he quoted and they state that the weekly return is £14,583. As there are 37 weeks in the football season that would only make it something like £500,000, and not £5,500,000.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: From what document is the hon. Member quoting?

Mr. DICKIE: I take it that I am quoting from the same document as the hon. Member. I think he referred to what was reported in the "Times" on 24th April, 1934. It refers to a return of £14,583 per week and a total return in a season of 37 weeks of £5,500,000, but my arithmetic will not permit me to arrive at those figures. I make it that £14,583 multiplied by 37—the number of weeks in the football season—would give a total of £539,571. There is also a statement here that the income for the Postmaster-General is 5d. per client per week, and taking their own figure of 700,000 that would give an income of about £500,000. I could scarcely credit the figure of £5,500,000 which the hon. Member mentioned and I rise merely to ask that the figure should either be corrected or substantiated.

Mr. FOOT: I cannot state from memory the figures which I gave during the Second Reading Debate, but I am taking steps to ascertain them, because on that occasion I was not relying upon the communication which appeared in the "Times" but upon a communication made to Members of this House, in which the promoters of these football pools were pleading their case on the ground of the contribution which they made to the Post Office. Perhaps before the discussion on the Amendment is concluded I may have an opportunity of giving the precise figures as I gave them on that occasion.

Mr. DICKIE: The document handed to me is similar to that from which the hon. Member was quoting earlier.

5.22 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: I rise to ask the Home Secretary whether before committing himself to a reply on this Amendment he will seriously consider this suggestion. If the Government do not themselves intend to deal with this football coupon evil, as apparently they do not, would they not be prepared to leave it to the House of Commons to take that responsibility by allowing a free vote of the Committee on this Amendment? Thus the Government would not incur the odium, if there is odium to be incurred, and the responsibility would rest where I think it ought to rest on the individual Members of this House to settle whether this evil, as I regard it, ought to be dealt with or not.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I am now able to refer hon. Members to the figures which I gave in the course of the Second Reading Debate. They were based on a communication from the promoters of the football pools themselves sent to all Members of the House, in which we were informed of the extent of football pool betting. The writers of the communication pleaded in support of their case the subvention which they gave to the State through the Post Office. We were told that the Post Office revenue from the circulars and other matters connected with football pools was £145,833 6s. 8d. per week. That we were told was the weekly yield to the Postmaster-General from these football pool transactions and that sum multiplied by 37, the number of weeks in the football season, shows a revenue for the season of £5,500,000. The figures which I quoted earlier and which the hon. Member has also referred to should have been £145,833 per week instead of £14,583 per week.

5.24 p.m.

Viscountess ASTOR: I hope the Home Secretary will give the Committee some good reason why the Government have left out of the Bill this most important recommendation of the Commission. I do not think I have every heard a better case made for a recommendation than that which has been made for this recommendation by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). I beg the Home Secretary to remember that he has to consider not only the people in the House of Commons but people in the country who are interested in the welfare of juveniles. I do not think that the question of the large profits which are made from these pools concerns those people so much as the question of the welfare of the young people. Anyone who goes round and speaks to people who are dealing with the social, moral and spiritual wellbeing of the young people of this country, will find that the Government's failure to deal with this matter has been a deep disappointment to them. We have never been given any reasons for that failure.
If ever a Government had a right to tackle thorny questions it is this National Government. I admire them for having brought in the Bill though I think they were very late in doing so. Had they brought it in earlier they would not have
had any difficulty at all. The country and the House of Commons were ready for it but the Government dallied and now we find all the vested interests ranged against the Bill. I ask them to go a little further, and to take another forward step now. I am convinced that if this Amendment were put to a free Vote in this Committee to-day it would be accepted, and the Committee will be doing a great service to the Government by insisting upon it. I could give instance after instance of boys whose whole moral character has been wrecked by gambling begun quite innocently in this way. We cannot do very much in these matters in regard to grown-up people. We can try to check abuses particularly where vested interests encourage people to do things which we consider to be bad for their moral or spiritual welfare but we cannot go very far. If persons are determined to do a certain thing in a free country they are going to do it. But you can do something in regard to the young people.
I cannot understand how the Attorney-General can support the attitude of the Government in failing to deal with this matter. I am horrified at him. I cannot bear to think that he has slipped on this occasion because I have hardly ever known him to slip before on a question of this kind. But I think if he goes to people in the country who are interested in these matters he will find that they are astonished and horrified at the Government's failure in this matter. There is one thing about all Governments, particularly Governments with large majorities, and it is that they have to be whipped into doing things by their own followers. That is particularly the case with a National Government where there are so many leaders that you have no leader at all. This is really a question for the House of Commons, and there are many hon. Members, certainly many of the women Members, who if they had their way, would vote against the Government if the Government had not courage enough to tackle this social evil. I want the Bill, even without a provision of the kind for which we ask, but I would ten thousand times rather have the Bill with such a provision, and I believe that, if the Committee take a stand on the question to-day, they will be doing a great service to the Government. I am a
most whole-hearted backer of the National Government both in the House of Commons and out of it, but as I have said before the National Government has too many leaders. If they fail to give a definite lead on a moral and social question of this kind it is up to Members of the House of Commons to see that they are made to do so.

5.30 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: The House is, of course, aware that in the original Bill, as introduced into the House of Lords, there was a provision dealing with this problem. I am told that we ought to have more courage. I am not quite sure whether I have not also been told that I am riding roughshod across public opinion. In any case the Debate as it developed in another place made it clear that this was one of the problems upon which there was a very grave division of opinion. The reason why the Government agreed in another place to drop this provision out of the Bill was that, of course, in the main this Bill deals with on-the-course betting and that, apart altogether from the question as to whether this football pool betting is desirable or undesirable, there are a great many other very difficult aspects of off-the-course betting, street betting, and the like which are not in the Bill; and it was therefore decided that, as our courage at any rate led us to deal with this very thorny problem, we desired to deal with on-the-course betting in the main. That is the broad reason why that matter disappeared.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I think a mistake has been made. I am sure the Home Secretary does not desire to mislead the Committee, but he said that as a result of discussion that took place in the other House, it was withdrawn. I think it was withdrawn before there was discussion.

Sir J. GILMOUR: As the result of what happened after Second Reading, I think. At any rate the Government had to come to a decision whether they would press forward with it or not, and they came to the conclusion that, while they recognised that there might be evils about this problem and reserved to themselves to put right and deal with this difficulty and other difficulties of off-the-course betting in future, as at present advised the Government cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us exactly what did happen after the Second Reading? We are told that reconsideration took place and a decision was taken, but surely we are entitled to know exactly what did happen after Second Reading. Was it not as a result of representations made by the pool people themselves, or was it as a result of representations made by newspapers, or what was the real reason?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think the actual announcement was made in another place by the Noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of the Bill; that was the actual place in which the announcement was made.

Sir B. PETO: Will my right hon. Friend give me some reply to my question, or are we to infer that the Government intend to use the whole of their power and the Government whips in favour of the promoters of these pools?

5.33 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: I think the Committee generally will agree with me that the reply of the Home Secretary is about the weakest that has ever been given from that Box. If I remember aright, it was the Government's intention to deal with the evil of football pool betting, and in between a certain date and another something happened. I think the Committee and the country have a right to know from the Home Secretary what actually did happen. Was it because pressure was brought to bear upon him by someone who had money in football pool betting? I do not mind telling the Committee that there was betting on football long before the National Government were ever formed, and I suppose there will he betting on football after they are defeated, with this difference, that in the old days, before football betting became as rampant as it is to-day, there was a fairer system of football betting. In the old days, when a bookmaker offered 4 to 1 for three "homes"—I was not in a pit for nearly 30 years without knowing something about it—there was this difference, that the man who was betting knew what he was going to get, and he got it, and the bookmaker stood to lose something, but on the football pool betting it is a case of "Heads I win, tails you lose," because you have got to-day a rake-off, and nobody can tell what it is.
I go so far as to say that if inquiries were instituted into the working of certain firms, I am not sure they could not be prosecuted for getting money under false pretences.
My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) quoted some leaflets. When I got home on Friday night, the first thing I picked up among my correspondence was a letter addressed to someone, not with my name, but with my address, enclosing a packet of coupons for football pool betting. My wife, who happens to be a little bit more innocent on these matters than I am, said "What are they?" And I had the pleasure of explaining to her until nearly 11 o'clock how exactly she could risk two pence if she wanted to do so. This matter has become a growing evil, and for the moment I am not so deeply concerned with the social side of the question, if the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) will understand me. I am satisfied that the people who indulge in football pool betting are not getting a square deal, but are being exploited unduly, and someone is getting the difference between what they pay out and what they bring in. My point is, that if football pool betting is legal, those who take part in it should have some guarantee that they are getting a square deal. I will conclude by saying that the Committee and the country have a right to know from the Home Secretary why the Government changed their mind on this point.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Those who have listened to the whole of the Debate from the commencement must have been astounded at the reply of the Home Secretary. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) made certain specific charges against the people who run this football pool betting. There is no burking it. I do not know the pros and cons of this question, but I am sent here to listen to the Debates, and when charges are made I think the Committee is entitled to ask the Minister to make a reasoned reply to those charges. I would not for a moment charge the Minister with insincerity, but the excuse that the right hon. Gentleman gave, namely, that this Bill was dealing merely with course betting, I cannot accept as
being the reason for altering the Bill. Something did happen after the Bill was introduced into the other House. Why were those alterations made? That is what the Committee is entitled to know. It must have been obvious to the right hon. Gentleman that this reason could have been given before the Bill was introduced, and there must be some other reason why this alteration was made. We are not permitted by the Rules of the House, I understand, to quote in this Debate, what happened in the other House, and I beg the Minister to tell us the real reason for the alteration, as some of us are in a difficulty as to what kind of vote to cast on this question, and we cannot exercise that vote intelligently until we are in receipt of the information that this Committee is entitled to have. During the short time that I have been here, I have never heard such a weak reply on an Amendment as we heard from the Home Secretary just now, and I think the Committee is entitled to press definitely for some further and more reasoned reply to the Amendment so ably moved by the hon. Member for Don Valley.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE: Like the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith), I do not propose to discuss the social issues involved in this Amendment, but I think the discussion has been useful, because it has raised thus early on the Committee stage of this Bill a matter of very great importance to the people of the country as a whole. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) said something which I thought was very true when she said that all Governments require often to be whipped into shape by their supporters, and I think perhaps she would agree with the inverted argument that it is not always a good thing for Governments to whip their supporters where and when they will. A suggestion of the greatest value came from the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), who got up and said, "Will the Government avoid the odium of making this decision about football pools and leave it to the House of Commons to make the decision? We are the trustees of the people in these great social matters, so let us decide."
I think that argument applies to the whole of this Measure. When we were dealing with Clause 1 in Standing Committee B, the Home Secretary, on more than- one occasion when he was resisting Amendments by some of my hon. Friends and myself, pleaded with us that this was not a party Measure, that it was not a matter in which it could rightly be claimed that the party was being resisted or that party views were not being met, and I think that this is a good opportunity for the Government to start a system, which would be welcomed in the country, under which great social measures of this kind should be shaped by the House of Commons, with a free vote of the House. I think that that suggestion was one of the greatest value.
There is another matter which the country will desire to see cleared up. Why was it that the Government, who are going to take such a firm stand in dealing with such evils as are involved in betting and lotteries, ran away on the firing of the first shot on behalf of the football pool? There is no question of anything having happened in another place. The Noble Lord, in moving the Second Reading in another place, made that announcement, and I think it was added that it set an unusual precedent in politics for a Minister introducing a Bill on Second Reading to announce an Amendment almost as soon as he was on his feet. But the Government having done that, and surrendered at the first shot fired by the football pool, surely we are entitled to ask why other matters in which people are interested, such as greyhound racing, meet with firm resistance and the placing-on of the whips.
The Noble Lady opposite, in saying that the Government should deal with this evil of football pools, used an argument which I know she feels deeply, but I should like to make to her the suggestion that, whatever the Government may or may not do this evening, and whatever may be the fate of this Amendment, the cause which she has at heart can be advanced in another way. There are those who have the greatest influence with the newspapers of the day, and the Noble Lady is one of them. Let her use her well-known influence in such quarters to see to it that the results of such pools are no longer published in the popular Press.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I want to support the Amendment. I was a member of the famous Committee upstairs which settled Clause 1, and I congratulated the Home Secretary more than once on standing firm against some of the Amendments that were proposed. I should have thought that in order to be in harmony with his attitude upstairs he would have readily accepted this Amendment. I would say to the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Braithwaite) that the Labour party on this occasion are showing more intelligence than his party, for each Member is voting for himself on the merits of each Amendment. The Tory party is not intelligent enough to have reached that stage yet. We shall go into the Lobby according to our individual convictions on this Amendment.
I want to call the attention of the Committee to what the Royal Commission said on this problem. I have always had an impression very much like that of the hon. Member for Hillsborough. I am satisfied that the Government have been influenced by two forces not to deal with this problem. The first is the strength of the newspaper agitation against this proposal and the other is the Post Office, which I am sure have had a say. I gather that the Post Office secure a very largé revenue from people who operate these football pools. There is an office in a large town in Lancashire which employs 1,000 persons to deal with this form of betting. Consequently, the Post Office do well out of it. I am wondering where the Postmaster-General stands on an issue like this. The Home Secretary is a good Scottish Presbyterian and the Postmaster-General is a good Wesleyan, and I am wondering what has happened to their principles in dealing with a problem of this kind. Let me quote one of the passages condemning this pool business in the Report of the Royal Commission in paragraph 327:
The provisions of the Act of 1920 have been evaded by subterfuges of various kinds, chiefly by the organisation of facilities in a manner intended to suggest that betting is being conducted on a credit basis.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away from the proposition that we are putting forward by saying that this Bill is confined to a certain aspect of betting, because the Bill is simply implementing
some of the recommendations of the Commission and avoiding others. In another passage the Commission recommended that there should be no totes on dog tracks, but the first thing the Government did in the Bill was to admit the tote on dog tracks. I do not think the Home Secretary is quite as firm in relation to this problem as he was upstairs. He delivered an oration in Committee that would have done credit to the great Greek orators, and we cheered him to the echo. All his Scottish virtues came to the top as he stood up to the ranks of the Tory party.
On this issue, which is the most important issue upon which we shall divide in the Lobby to-night, he falls before the newspaper crowd. The Government are afraid of the newspapers, and I am sure the newspapers have frightened him. He is more frightened of them than he is of some Members of his own party, and that is saying a great deal. I should like him to tell us whether the Postmaster-General has had a conference with him on this issue, because I can imagine the Postmaster-General wanting to show a good balance-sheet at the end of the year. I could have quoted a greater condemnation still of pool betting, but I will confine myself to asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot accept the Amendment. It is one of the most important Amendments on the Paper. The Under-Secretary always tries to shield himself behind the Home Secretary, and often replies to debates by saying, "The Secretary of State has said so and so, and I agree with him." We ought to have his opinion on this Amendment, so that we can know whether there is a united front in the Home Office on the question.

5.51 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) rightly said that the Government stated that the main objects of this Bill were to prevent social demoralisation and the exploitation of the individual for private gain. These being the two main objects of the Bill, will the Home Secretary kindly explain why the question of football pools was omitted and the question of a national lottery was excluded? There cannot be any question which is the more demoralising. As the hon. Member for Bodmin and the Noble Lady
the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) said, we are not very much concerned with protecting adults from their own foolishness, but with protecting juveniles from having their pennies taken for the profit of individuals. The whole House agrees with that. Yet the Government in their wisdom say that that is a matter with which they are not going to deal and that not in any circumstances shall adults be allowed to take a 10s. ticket at the Post Office, of which 5s. shall go in prizes and 5s. shall go to the State. No children would be concerned in that, and there would be no exploitation of the individual for private gain.
In the Committee upstairs, when the Government were saved from defeat time after time by the votes of the Socialist Opposition, those of us who took a different view were told again and again that this was not a party Measure and that, therefore, it was right that all parties should join in passing such Clauses as they agreed with. Yet we are now told that we are to have the Government Whips put on in order to force through each Clause of this Measure, whether we agree with it or not. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) said that if ever there were a Measure that should be left to the free vote of the House, this is such a Measure. Surely the question of football pools is one on which the House as a whole should vote as it desires. Tomorrow, if not to-night, there will be the question of lotteries, and that, too, is a matter which should be left to the free vote of the House.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman had better stop at the Clause with which we are now dealing.

Sir W. DAVISON: I was giving that only as an example of the desirability of having a free vote for the reasons which the Home Secretary gave upstairs. I hope that somebody on behalf of the Government will explain why football pools were taken out of the Bill before it was even moved in the other House. Now we have all this hanky-panky and jugglery of bringing it down from upstairs, and I hope the Home Secretary will explain why football pools are not socially demoralising and why lotteries are.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: I am going to ask the Government to reject the Amendment for the same reason that they deleted the Clause dealing with football pools from the original Bill. It is obvious to everybody, although everybody seems to be asking why it was done. It was not done because of political expediency, but because, had it remained in the Bill, no Government responsible for the Bill would ever have been able to secure a mandate from the people whose only remaining vestige of liberty to do what they like with their own money had been taken from them. Whether it be right or wrong that these pools should be allowed to exist, to reintroduce a Clause making them illegal would not only pour greater ridicule on the Bill than already exists, but would pour greater ridicule, if that be possible, on the forces that have compelled the Government to accept this as a national Measure. If the Government accept the Amendment and make football pool betting illegal, it will be one of the greatest acts of folly that any Government could commit.
Reference has been made to juvenile gambling. When I was a boy at school I was always gambling; so were all my schoolmates. When the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) went to school, he also gambled unless he was very different from any other human being. Undoubtedly he played "cherry gogs" and "buttons"; and undoubtedly, when he lost at tossing cigarette cards, he had to buy more with his weekly halfpenny if he wanted to compete with the other boys in the following week. Gambling is just as inherent in children to-day as it has been throughout the ages of the past. All this talk about the moral degradation of juveniles by football pool betting is nothing more than moonshine. I am convinced that if you attempt to destroy this remaining vestige of liberty which the working man enjoys by making it impossible for him to bet in this way, you will find yourselves confronted with a serious problem in connection with betting. We all know, if we speak the truth, that if the average working man is compelled by law to do a thing or is prevented by law from doing a thing, it is the greatest possible incentive for him to go against the law. One of the evils of betting to-day is the anomaly that exists as between the working man's
right and what is considered to be the right of other persons to put forward a rather bigger stake than the average man can afford.
The big profits of football coupon establishments have been mentioned. They must, of course, make big profits for they are dealing with millions of people every week. It has not been stated that one of the reasons why big profits are made is the natural tendency on the part of those people who have a bet on credit not to pay up when pay day comes. They actually put the policy of the Socialist party into practice whenever their football coupon goes down. I am told on the most responsible authority that every week some 30 or 35 or 40 per cent. of those who have a gamble on the credit football pool have it under conditions which mean that when pay day comes they are going to default.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Do I understand that the hon. Member being in touch with those who know this side of the business, says that 35 to 40 per cent. of those who invest in it fail to carry out their obligations? Could there be a stronger condemnation of any scheme?

Mr. PIKE: If a man, verbally or in writing consents honourably to fulfil a contract, surely the fact that he does not do so is not a sufficient ground for saying that the contract was a bad one to start with and should never have been entered into. The whole point is that there are hundreds and thousands of men throughout the country, going round every week as links in a chain in the football coupon business, who have a bet "on the nod." If it comes off it is all right and they pocket the spoils and will have another bet the following week. The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith), who referred to an envelope coming to his door which was not addressed to him, but to somebody else, which he opened and found to contain football coupons, must know two things: First, that he was breaking the law when be opened a letter which was not addressed to him, and, secondly—

Mr. T. SMITH: The hon. Member will not get away with that. The envelope was addressed to the occupier of the house. Further, if he knows anything at all about coupon betting he should know, when he says that more than 30
per cent. of the men who indulge in it are defaulters, that that is not true, and, secondly, he ought to know that if a man defaults one week he is not permitted to bet the next.

Mr. PIKE: He is not permitted to bet with the firm with whom he has defaulted, but that does not prevent him from betting with another firm. He gives them all a trial. It does not matter what legislation is introduced to stop it, because these practices only show the inherent gambling spirit of the average Britisher. By accepting this Amendment we should destroy the last remaining facility for credit betting among working men. After all, this pool betting does, to a very small extent, put the working man on a more respectable level as regards betting facilities. It gives him facilities for credit betting. At the moment, if he has a bet in the street, puts on 6d. each way, for example, he is acting illegally. Football pool betting does at least cloak him in the gentleman's garb; in other words, he has an honourable account with a bookmaker; and if it does not rain over the week-end and the wife does not ask for too much, he will settle on the following Thursday. I say to the Home Secretary that it was political expediency which compelled him to withdraw the Clause from the Bill, and that he should now he courageous and say that political expediency is going to prevent him from putting it back.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. J. JONES: Although I cannot pretend to be so highly developed morally as some of those who have taken part in this Debate, I am not a gambler, and do not know anything about the methods of those who go in for football pools, but I say quite frankly that I am prepared to support an Amendment which places a limitation upon the possibilities of rascality. I do not object to a man or a woman putting a shilling on a horse, or engaging in any other form of speculation, but if we allow unlimited possibilities for the exploitation of the people we are committing an offence not merely against morals but against the machinery of Government. Consequently I cannot understand why hon. Members opposite get into a state of excitement over the rights of the workers to have facilities for betting on credit. I say that, speaking generally, working men cannot
afford to bet on credit or under any other system. If the average working man is to maintain himself and those dependent upon him in decency, he has no time and no money for those who make a living by supporting and developing gambling.
People outside have sometimes made the charge that I am supporting this kind of thing. I am not. I have always stood for the right of the worker to have the opportunity to do, within reasonable limits, what other people do to an unreasonable extent, and a limitation is laid down in the case of the totalisator upon racecourses and dog tracks and in other ways, but in this particular case there is no limitation or regulation. It is simply a question of clever people organising these pools to take the fullest advantage they can of other people's stupidity and their own cupidity. I am not generally a supporter of some of those who have taken part in this Debate, though not from the same angle, but really we are all gamblers if it comes to a realisation of the facts. There are people who gamble in other ways, and they are regarded as quite respectable. In my own constituency we have one of the largest dog tracks in the country, and thousands of people go there three times a week. They are looked upon by some people as being hardly respectable. Then I take a trip to the West End of London and I find people going to boxing matches where they pay a guinea for a seat to see two men knock each other about, and put a couple of guineas on the one whom they think is going to win. Ono fellow is potentially a criminal, and the other fellow is fit to belong to the House of Commons.
In my view, gambling is not worth the trouble. It does not do any good to anybody except those who take advantage of other people. I support this Amendment, but I ask the Government to trust the House of Commons. If we were given a free choice we would give a real verdict and discriminate between the real and the false in this matter. I would rather have the Government say to us, "We will give you a free hand on matters of importance arising on this Bill." If that were done I think both the Government and the people would be saved. I am not very anxious about saving the Government, because the sooner they are dead the better pleased I shall be, but in the general interests of
the community this Amendment ought to be carried, and the Government ought to trust the House of Commons to a greater extent than it does.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. JOHN WALLACE: I do not profess to know very much about gambling, but I have listened to all the speeches made since this Amendment was introduced, and the story which has been unfolded, especially by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), has been to me a most unpleasant revelation. I had not the slightest idea that football coupon newspaper betting was going on to this extent, and I am not only surprised but, as a staunch supporter of the National Government, I am a little uneasy and disturbed that this Amendment is not accepted. I was not on the Committee which considered this Bill, and do not know particulars of all that has happened, but I should say that if a free vote were taken to-day among those who have listened to this Debate there would not be the slightest doubt of the result. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has very strong instincts of fairness in his composition and is always prepared to give a reason for the hope that is in him, but this afternoon he gave a most abbreviated reason, which did not convey very much conviction to my mind. If the facts are as they have been stated this afternoon—and they have never been contradicted—the need for Government legislation is immediate and imperative. On that point I wish to ask my right hon. Friend two questions. The first is whether it is even now too late for him to reconsider his decision and consent to this Amendment, in some form, being included in the Bill. The second is whether, having regard to the statement he made earlier, he has legislation in view for an early date which will deal with this particular aspect of betting.
I am not speaking now to condemn betting from every point of view. I have some sympathy with those who occasionally like to take their amusement in this, particular form, but this pool betting of which we have been told this afternoon is a vicious form of betting, from which unprincipled people are taking a most unfair share of the profits. After all, the man who bets with a bookmaker gets a run for his money and, generally speaking though not always, knows where he is;
but if this unrestricted and unfair profit-taking by those who are running this particular system is allowed to go on, I shall be very much surprised if the country does not take a very different view of the attitude of the Government towards this Amendment from that which my right hon. Friend seems to expect.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I have never taken part in a football pool and am not able to identify with certainty any of my acquaintances who may have done so, and therefore I may say that I know nothing about it, but I was rather struck by the figures given by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), because he indicated that the Post Office was making some £5,500,000 a year and rather hinted that the attitude of the Government might be influenced by the fact that the country was getting so much out of this football pool system.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I did not say that the Government were being influenced by that. I have a better opinion of the Government. But that argument was put forward by the promoters, who submitted those figures to every Member of the House before the Second Reading, and thought we should be influenced by that consideration.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I thought it was the hon. Member who put forward that view, but it was somebody else in the Debate. Since that speech was made I have been to the Library to consult the Board of Trade Journal, which every month publishes the average daily takings of the Post Office in respect of postal business, leaving out of account money order business, savings bank business, telephones, etc.—just the postal traffic in letters, post cards and parcels. Going back to last year, when the situation was not being disturbed in any way by the prospect of this Bill, I find that in May, when the pools would have come to an end, business was £1,800 a day more than in April, when the pools would have been running. [Interruption.] I am only giving the figures, and if the hon. Member thinks he can prove anything different he is entitled to do so. I find that the postal receipts during June and July were round about the same figure as May, something just over £130,000 a day. In August, with the general cessation of
business activities, the figure dropped. In September it had got back to the same figure as May and June, and then in October, when the football pools really got busy, it jumped about £6,000 or £7,000. This year there was a jump of about £6,000. At the beginning of the season, apparently, postal traffic jumps up about £7,000 a day; at the end it does not seem to fall at all. That would indicate that there is great enthusiasm at the beginning of the season, as there is with the evening classes, at which boys sign on at the beginning of the session but do not stay the course. Therefore, one may say that £4,000 per day for about 200 days represents the real postal receipts and that would indicate some £800,000, and not £5,500,000.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I would like to quote from the actual paragraph in the document, which is addressed to the Prime Minister and a copy of which was sent to Members of the House. It is signed by the Football Pool Promoters' Association and is dated 13th April, 1934. The paragraph says:
No less will be the effect upon the national revenue. We estimate that the return to the Postmaster-General is about 5d. per client per week, for there is the halfpenny stamp required for sending the coupon to the client, the three-halfpenny stamp when he returns it, the three-halfpenny stamp when the client posts his remittance plus the poundage upon postal orders and cheques. Therefore, each week for 37 weeks per year the Postmaster-General alone receives directly as a result of the football pool business "—
and this is the figure that has to be corrected—
£14,583 6s. 8d. or £5,500,000 per season. The whole of this revenue will be lost if football pools are abolished.
That was sent to Members of the House, and shortly afterwards, just before the Debate, the Association issued a correction stating that the sum "£14,583" should have been £145,000. I am merely giving their statement.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not know anything about their statement, but I am trying to check their estimate of the money received by the Postmaster-General. It does not appear that he has received £5,500,000. My estimate excludes the poundage on postal orders, and therefore we probably ought to add to our £800,000 enough to bring it up to the round £1,000,000 instead of to £5,500,000. If the hon. Member for Bodmin thinks that the
Postmaster-General ought to have received the larger sum, perhaps he will assist me in the Library in tracing it.

Mr. MABANE: Is it the object of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) to discredit the propaganda of the Football Pool Promoters' Association? I am trying to follow his argument.

Mr. WILLIAMS: That is not my object. I am trying to clear up the facts in regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bodmin. People send literature to us, and most of it goes in the wastepaper baskets. That is why we have such big baskets. Sometimes when we read it we find mistakes, and if we find mistakes why should we not say so?

Mr. PIKE: If the total number of persons having a bet with these football pools paid what they should on reckoning day, the Postmaster-General's income would be a lot higher from poundage.

6.19 p.m.

Sir ALFRED BUTT: Consequent upon the findings of the Royal Commission, the Government, and principally the Home Secretary, have felt it their duty to introduce a Measure to deal with gambling. Every fair-minded person will agree that the Home Secretary has tried to deal with the elements of gambling which he thought were becoming social evils, but from the speech to which we have just listened he must have come to the conclusion that, rightly or wrongly, he has left out the most glaring social evil in connection with gambling. An hon. Member has said that it would be dangerous and politically bad for any Government to condemn football coupons, but no one has attempted to justify them, or to minimise them, as social evils which affect those who are least able to look after themselves. I urge the Home Secretary to follow the suggestion made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), and to remove from the Government the odium which must follow if they do not legislate to deal with football coupons. I appeal to him to allow the House a free vote. I am convinced if he did so that the vote on this question—[HON. MEMBERS: "On the Bill?"]—no, on this particular Amendment—would be an overwhelming majority in favour of the Amendment. Anxious as I am to support the Government at all times on this question, I feel most strongly and with
great reluctance that I cannot go into the Lobby in favour of the Government on this Amendment. I urge the Home Secretary to give us one reason which would satisfy us why we should reject the Amendment.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: The Home Secretary has a very difficult position before him. I feel strongly about the evil which we are suffering in Liverpool from the pernicious system which is in operation to-day, but dealing with one iniquity will not bring an equitable system into operation. My opposition is not only to one part of the Bill. I would like to see the. Government deal with this matter from a national point of view as it ought to be dealt with. I do not believe in gambling, but I do not understand how the Government can give preferential treatment, as they have in regard to the Amendment which is before the House. I want to hear hon. Members enunciate what they consider fair and straight action from Britishers in regard to the Bill. The Amendment is not a palliative in the interests of certain people. The puritanical spirit is represented in all parts of the House, but there is also the sporting instinct. Among my colleagues some take a very different point of view from me, but all are as anxious as I am to see the question of gambling properly dealt with. This hole-and-corner method is not the proper way to deal with it, nor is it an indication of the square way in which the question ought to be approached. We are told that the Whips are to be put on. When we ask for them to be taken off we are told that that will be preferential treatment. That is not the way to deal with the matter. If there is to be taxation and penalties, they should affect everybody in regard to gambling over the whole of the nation. The Bill is not a square Bill. I urge the Minister to allow full expression, of opinion on the Bill and to withdraw the Whips, so that the Bill may be representative of the House of Commons. Throw this Bill into the melting-pot. Take it out of the House, and come back with something that is sensible.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. DICKIE: In the plea put forward by the Football Pool Promoters Association the original figure of the return to the Post Office, as was stated by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), was
£14,583 per week. A mistake has occurred. I believe that the mistake in the cypher which ought to have been added to that figure is one of multiplica4n and that the figure of £14,583 is far more likely to be the correct one, calculating from £700,000, made up of 5d. per client per week. Both sums amount to something like £500,000 per annum. I attach no importance to the figures, except that I should like to see them accurately put before the House. It is perfectly evident that no such sum as £5,500,000 could accrue to the Post Office from this form of business, and I hope that the Committee will not be impressed.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. RAIKES: I shall have much pleasure in supporting the Government on this Amendment even though the Whips are on. I am astounded at the amount of criticism which has been levelled at the humble football coupons, which are extremely popular in countless working class homes. The Association have time after time announced their willingness for anything in. the way of investigation by the Government to see that matters are fairly conducted. Most of the big pools have the advantage of chartered accountants looking into their accounts. I hope that the Home Secretary will stand out against this Amendment.

6.29 p.m.

Captain ARTHUR HOPE: I wish to make a last appeal to the Home Secretary to allow a free vote of the Committee not only on this 2mendment but on the Bill. It is a non-party Bill which cuts right across parties, but Members of all parties have differing views in regard to football coupons, and if the Home Secretary would give us a free vote he would have much more chance to get his Bill through than by strenuously opposing every Amendment which is put down.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I just ask the Home Secretary, before we proceed to a Division, whether, in view of the general appeal that has been made from all parts of the Committee, he cannot give us a reason for the exclusion of football pools? No reasonable excuse for it has been given so far. Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the Committee that he will reconsider the whole question of football pools between now and Report? If he would do that, he might allay a good deal of fear in the minds of hon. Members.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 68.

Division No. 381.]
AYES.
[6.30 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Butler, Richard Austen
Drewe, Cedric


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.


Albery, Irving James
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Duckworth, George A. V.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Castlereagh, Viscount
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Duggan, Hubert John


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Dunglass, Lord


Apsley, Lord
Chamberlain, Rt.Hon.SirJ.A.(Birm.,W)
Eales, John Frederick


Aske, Sir Robert William
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony


Atholl, Duchess of
Clarry, Reginald George
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Elliston, Captain George Sampson


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Elmley, Viscount


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Cook, Thomas A.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Cooper, A. Duff
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Copeland, Ida
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Bonn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Birchail, Major Sir John Dearman
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Bossom, A. C.
Cranborne, Viscount
Fleming, Edward Lascelles


Boulton, W. W.
Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.
Fox, Sir Gifford


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Cross, R. H.
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Crossley, A. C.
Ganzonl, Sir John


Brass, Captain Sir William
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Gibson, Charles Granville


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Broadbent, Colonel John
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davison, Sir William Henry
Goff, Sir Park


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Denman Hon. R. D.
Goldle, Noel B.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Denville, Alfred
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Buchan, John
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)


Burnett, John George
Dickie, John P.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Graves, Marjorie


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Savory, Samuel Servington


Greene, William P. C.
Meller, Sir Richard James
Scone, Lord


Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Grimston, R. V.
Milne, Charles
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Slmmonds, Oliver Edwin


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Hanbury, Cecil
Moreing, Adrian C.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Harbord, Arthur
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Morrison, William Shepherd
Somervell, Sir Donald


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Munro, Patrick
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
North, Edward T.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Nunn, William
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Storey, Samuel


Hurd, Sir Percy
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Patrick, Colin M.
Strauss, Edward A.


Inskip. Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Peake, Osbert
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Pearson, William G.
Summersby, Charles H.


Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Penny, Sir George
Tate, Mavis Constance


Jamieson, Douglas
Percy, Lord Eustace
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(Pd'gt'n,S.)


Jones. Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Petherick, M.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Ker, J. Campbell
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bllston)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Pike, Cecil F.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Knox, Sir Alfred
Power, Sir John Cecil
Train, John


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Pybus, Sir John
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Radford, E. A.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Levy, Thomas
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Liddall, Walter S.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunllffe-
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Locker- Lawson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n)
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Wayland, Sir William A.


Loder, Captain J. de Vera
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Loftus, Pierce C.
Ray, Sir William
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Remer, John R.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


MacAndrew. Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Rickards, George William
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


McEntee, Valentine L.
Russell. Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


McKie, John Hamilton
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Womersley, Sir Walter


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Wood, Rt. Hon, Sir H. Kingsley


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Maitland, Adam
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Salt, Edward W.



Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Major George Davies and


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Commander Southby.


NOES.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Attlee, Clement Richard
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Paling, Wilfred


Banfield, John William
Holdsworth, Herbert
Parkinson, John Allen


Batey, Joseph
Horobin, Ian M.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Rea, Walter Russell


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, Sir William
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Daggar, George
John, William
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)


Davies, Stephen Owen
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Soper, Richard


Dobbie, William
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Edwards, Charles
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Thorne, William James


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lees-Jones, John
Wallace, John (Dunfermiline)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Lunn, William
West, F. R.


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Mabane, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llaneily)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Magnay, Thomas
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Griffiths, George A. (Yorks,W.Riding)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)



Groves, Thomas E.
Milner, Major James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, Thomas W.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Mr. Isaac Foot and Mr. T. Smith.


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)



Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): The next Amendment that I
select is that in the name of the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr.
Horobin)—in page 3, line 3, at the end, to insert:
(c) on a licensed track being a dog racecourse where a charge for admission is made of not less than sixpence per person.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. HOROBIN: The effect of this Amendment, if carried, would be to prevent a small but definite evil which may increase as time goes on. So far as this Measure has any recognised or general principles behind it, one, which has been laid down over and over again, both by the Royal Commission and by my right hon. Friend, is that we should not allow profit to be made out of gambling instincts on the part of the citizen. It therefore seems to me to stand to reason that, if any company, not being a charitable undertaking, runs a track without charging for admission, it must be making its profits in some way, and it does not require any very great knowledge of the finances of these undertakings to realise that it is in fact making a profit out of betting. It will not be denied that some tracks already exist which make a nominal charge, and even, in some cases, no charge. Further, they actually have already started in many cases providing almost free—and, I think I am correct in saying, in some cases completely free—conveyance to the track. It is quite clear that the profits which it is possible to obtain from betting are so great that it will be worth in many cases going to extreme limits to encourage people to attend. I need not elaborate the matter further, but can save the Committee's time by leaving it there.
It should, surely, be impossible to justify running a track by making a profit out of betting, directly or indirectly. If no charge is made, or if a nominal charge is made, the profit must in effect be made out of betting. This Amendment would make it illegal to charge less than a certain sum. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will accept, either in this form or in any other form which he prefers, an Amendment which should ensure that only those tracks remain which at any rate purport to be making their profit out of charges for admission, and should make it impossible for tracks either to continue or grow up in the future when the very fact that they do not make a sufficient charge for admission
proves that, whether by open or underhand methods, they are making a profit out of gambling.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. Member move the Amendment in this form:
In page 3, line 3, at the end, to insert:
'and where a charge for admission is made of not less than sixpence per person.'" 
It is a point of drafting.

Mr. HOROBIN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, at the end, to insert:
and where a charge for admission is made of not less than sixpence per person.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend on moving the Amendment. It seems to me very undesirable for any form of entertainment to be run where the sole means of revenue is derived from betting. I take little or no part in betting myself, but it is obvious that great masses of people do, and will continue to do. If betting is going to be associated with any form of game, sport or amusement it seems to me very desirable that those who are promoting the amusement should obtain their revenue primarily from charges for admission, and not from incitement to betting. The Committee ought to be grateful to my hon. Friend for moving the Amendment, and I hope that the Home Secretary will give it his most favourable consideration.

6.46 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Naturally this is one of the problems to which the Government have given very careful consideration. At present there is little or no restriction on the profits that may be made from betting on many of these courses. The Bill sets out to impose these restrictions, and the reasons why we have decided that we ought not to try to impose a minimum charge are these: First, I think it will be very undesirable for the Government to take any responsibility for laying down the way in which an industry of this kind should be conducted by imposing certain penalties. What we do is to lay down very distinctly that, when the Bill becomes law, operators of these courses shall be strictly limited to any profit that they can make from the totalisator, and if there is any profit to be made
other than this limited profit, it must be made from the charges which they, in their judgment, make on the clients who go to these entertainments. I think on reflection it will be seen that it is a matter that should be left to the discretion of the business itself and that the restriction on the possibility of profits from betting which the Bill imposes will really be an incentive to them to impose a charge which will be adequate and which the public may be able to pay. For these reasons, the Government have carefully considered the problem and have decided against the Amendment, and we cannot accept it.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I regret the right hon. Gentleman's decision. It was brought out on the Second Reading that, when the totalisator was in existence, some owners of greyhound tracks actually organised an omnibus service which scoured the neighbourhood for a mile or two around, brought people to the track and allowed them free admission knowing full well, of course, that the company would derive their revenue from bets. We also know that in certain cases people have been allowed to enter a track on payment of 4d. for a programme. They have also been allowed to enter the track with no payment at all, the owners of the track obviously knowing that their revenue would be forthcoming from bets. It may be said that, if a person has not the money to go to a track, he will not go, but it seems to me now that you are restoring the totalisator that you are re-establishing a vested interest in betting, and that is the reason why the right hon. Gentleman ought to limit entry by imposing a minimum charge. If a person feels disposed to pay 6d., he is interested either in the sport or in betting. At least let there be some sort of payment. To leave track owners with the power to do just as they like for the purpose of encouraging people to attend is, I think, a step in the wrong direction. I hope wherever betting is taking place the right hon. Gentleman will make a minimum charge for entry.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I hope the Home Secretary will consider this Amendment still further before Report. I quite understand that there are restrictions im-
posed, but I do not follow why this further restriction cannot be put on the owners of tracks. We start with this, that there is no sport as such upon the dog track. If it were simply a question of the sport, no one would go there. [Interruption.] I thought that was common ground. The evidence given before the Royal Commission led them very clearly to the conclusion that, if people were to go out from their homes simply to see dogs running after a hare and there was no betting, the places would be practically derelict and the grass would grow over these emporia of public entertainment. I did not know that that was disputed. If anyone would like to try the experiment of running a dog track on which there was no betting, he would be a man of greater faith than most Members of this House. The Commissioners themselves thought that without betting in some form or another the sport would attract no one and the enterprise would not be worth while.

Mr. DENVILLE: Is not the hon. Member aware that in the North miners and others who own whippets and greyhounds race them for the sport of racing?

Mr. FOOT: I am aware that there are parts where those sports exist, but generally I think no one will suggest that dog tracks could exist if there were not betting in some form or another. But we have so many serious points to discuss that it is not worth while to get angry with each other when we are on common ground. If that is the inducement, we ought not to make the door into dog tracks too easy. Certainly we ought not to make it too easy for young people. When a man has to pay an entrance fee, he thinks about it. If the door is open and there is no entrance fee, and in addition inducements are offered and every attempt is made to get people inside instead of remaining outside, it means that the evil against which the Bill is directed, an evil which was emphasised by the commissioners, will not be checked, and will probably be enlarged. I think the Amendment is upon the lines of the Government's intention and the desire of the commissioners, and I do not understand why it should not be accepted. We are not anxious to go too often into the Division Lobbies. A big principle was raised on the last occasion, but on smaller matters I have no desire to be
frequently dividing against the Government, though I hope that where an Amendment has behind it a very considerable argument which is not inconsistent with the purpose of the Government but supplements the Government's declared purpose, further consideration will be given to it between now and Report. That is my only reason for rising.

6.55 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: The Home Secretary did not refuse the Amendment because he was opposed to the principle underlying it, but because this particular way of regulating meticulously the exact sum to be charged for admission was not the right way of dealing with the question. They were dealing with the question of preventing these dog racing tracks being simply supported by profits directly or indirectly derived from betting and their method of doing that was by regulating strictly, for the first time, the amount of revenue to be derived from the totalisator. It was made clear in another place when the 5 per cent. was settled as a maximum—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That matter will come up for discussion later. We can postpone consideration of it till the Amendment in question is reached.

Sir B. PETO: I was going to say that it is only a question of procedure to arrive at a common purpose, and I think there is a great deal to be said for the Home Secretary's argument that there are two ways of dealing with this. I have an Amendment to the Schedule which would directly prevent these tracks being run from profits derived from a percentage on the totalisator. Being a supporter of the Government, I have a stronger reason than the hon. Member opposite for not desiring to enter the Lobby in opposition more than I can help, and I shall support the Home Secretary on this occasion because I quite see that there are two ways of arriving at the same object, but I shall watch with great interest what he does with the Government's Amendment to increase the percentage and what he does with my Amendment, which will prevent them from getting any profits at all from this particular source of revenue. When we have settled that, we shall know how to deal with the matter on Report.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. McCORQUODALE: There is one point on which, I think, the Home Secretary is rather under a misapprehension. He said the only source of income from betting would be the regulated amount obtained from the totalisator and from bookmakers' profits. We have been informed that in the case of some of the unlicensed and unregulated tracks, owning their own dogs, the method by which the management recouped themselves for running the track was that the result of one race was "cooked" and the management backed the dog that was to win and made enough money in that way to carry on the business. I cannot see that the Bill will close the avenue to unlicensed, unregulated, unscrupulous traffic recouping itself in that way and so still being able to charge nothing for admission and yet being a financial success.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: The Amendment, if carried, would have quite a different effect from that which has been explained as its purpose—a purpose with which all sides of the Committee will feel a good deal of sympathy. The result would be to hand over to the proprietors of the track an extra 6d. for each person who attended. I cannot believe for a moment that a charge of 6d. will seriously diminish the number of people going to the track. If people want to go, and have enough money to bet with—and it is for betting that they attend—they are not going to be frightened away by a charge of 6d. The only advantage that I can see that these proprietors will derive from opening their tracks free is to allow them to compete with the owners of other tracks. Quite frankly, I do not believe it was the purpose of this Amendment or of this House to permit that. I cannot see what effect this Amendment will have. I am quite certain that any proposal on these lines, however desirable might be its purpose, would prove absolutely ineffective. In fact I believe it would result in an increase of profit for the proprietors of these greyhound tracks, which I am sure is the last thing which the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Horobin) and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) wish to see. For that reason I believe the Govern-
ment have been well advised to reject this Amendment, and I hope if they do have to tighten up the restrictions any more on the Report stage, they will find some other and more effective way of doing it.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: I hope that the Government will strongly resist this Amendment, because of the ridicule which will be cast upon them if they do not. This Bill is a Bill to check the evils of gambling and, irrespective of the appeal made by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), I do not want to be accused of doing something which will make them receivers of profit as a result of the evils arising from the new conditions imposed. That is exactly what it would mean. There is such a thing now in existence as an Entertainments Duty on the cheaper seats and the cheaper places at entertainments. The Government in accepting this Amendment would lay themselves open to very serious consequences. Personally, I think, too, that it would be an extremely bad precedent if any Government were to be allowed to say that any business should charge this or that as a definite price for whatever commodity it placed upon the market. It may be good Liberal economics, but when it comes to a question of destroying the morals of the youth of the country, I believe it would be very injurious. I believe it would be very injurious for the majority of them to attend a Liberal meeting or conference, irrespective of whether they got in for nothing or had to pay for admittance. I regard this as a bad Amendment, and I hope that the Government will reject it.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. WISE: It is not often that I find myself in disagreement with the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) and the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike), but I do suggest that the minimum charge is a certain safeguard, particularly when we consider the effort which I am sure the Government are trying to make to see that these big racecourses are not run solely as a form of gambling machine. Facts were given to the Committee upstairs and to the Royal Commission which showed that in many cases not only is admission to some
tracks free but transport to the track is provided for nothing. Surely if that is the case there must be a legitimate profit coming from the proceeds of betting on those tracks. Furthermore, if as the hon. Member for Aylesbury says this extra charge would be no deterrent to the number of people attending these dog races why was it found necessary to have free admission to secure attendances at all? The inference is that otherwise people would not attend in sufficient numbers If the Government sincerely wish to put any check on the running of badly conducted tracks this minimum charge is the best check which they could possibly introduce. I do not think that they should without very serious consideration turn down so reasonable a suggestion.
In spite of what the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) says, it is not betting alone that takes people to see dog racing. It is perfectly true, and it would be foolish to deny it, that if there were no betting there would be no dog tracks, but on the other hand it is true that if there were no betting no sort of racecourse would exist for very long. Certainly there are plenty of people who do not bet on horse racing, but the attendances would be so reduced if there were no betting that there would be no horse racing. Although the number of people who go to dog racing without betting is very much smaller than the number of people that go to horse racing without betting, there is a very definite element which goes to see dog racing purely as a spectacle. Certainly not enough to make it pay. But the fact that there are some does show that betting is not the sole consideration. If betting is not the sole consideration, then it is right and proper that the management of a track should be entitled to charge for the amusement: they purvey. They should be protected from the competition from those running tracks simply and solely as a machine for gambling. There is no other way to do this than to impose a minimum charge. I only regret that the minimum charge is so low: I should like to have seen it rather higher. Nor should I like to see the Government ignore entirely the point raised by the hon. Member for Attercliffe. This would provide a considerable source of revenue. Surely the Treasury have not entirely forgotten this. I am quite certain that if the Ministers in charge of the Bill would consult with
their colleagues they would find that the Treasury would probably be reluctant to forego this income, which may come in very useful one of these days. It would not be a very large sum. The total number of people who go dog racing is probably not more than 1,500,000, but that number of people at sixpence per attendance would represent a considerable sum in the course of a year, and this aspect should not be excluded from consideration.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. DENVILLE: If long experience in the entertainment world is of any consequence in the Committee, I would like to point out that whenever there is a free entertainment of any description given there is always a very large audience. I only say that in order to rid my friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) of any apprehension he may have. I am in opposition to the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: With regard to the Amendment standing in my name, in page 3, to leave out lines 4 to 8, I would like to ask, for the purpose of saving time, whether it would affect Clause 17 if this paragraph were left there? Would it change in any way Clause 17 whether these lines were left in the Bill or not? If dealing with the question of Tote Investors Limited requires these four lines to be dealt with, I would like to make my points now to avoid any repetition later on. If, however, the mere negotiating of bets does not affect the collection of bets, which are two different things, then I am not sure that I ought to waste the time of the Committee now. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can give me a reply.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I think I can give the hon. Gentleman the answer. This proviso merely maintains what is the existing status. But Clause 17 also deals with the same point about Tote Investors, and if the hon. Member wishes to raise a question of Tote Investors here I think it would be quite in order for him to do so.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that it might be better to take the discussion on Totalisator Limited on Clause 17, and if the Committee decided
to leave out Clause 17, the Amendment would then follow as a consequential Amendment on the Report stage.

Mr. PIKE: If the Amendment in my name to Clause 17 is accepted, do I understand that that would automatically bring about the deletion of these words which the hon. Member is moving to delete now?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think it necessarily would. I said that if Clause 17 were deleted and that if in consequence these words were found to be redundant, they could be moved out in the Report stage.

Captain CROOKSHANK: This proviso deals only with what Tote Investors can do on the course. Clause 17 deals with a much larger issue.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: On your assurance, Captain Bourne, that we can deal effectively with the question on Clause 17, I will not move my Amendment now.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, after the third "or," to insert "knowingly."
In certain circumstances an occupier may commit a contravention of the Act although not knowingly committing such a contravention, and the onus of proof, I think, should be laid on the prosecution and not on the defence. With that simple explanation, I beg formally to move the Amendment.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): It may, I think, be argued that the word "permit" in itself contains a sufficient suggestion of positive action to make the Amendment unnecessary. However, we are prepared to accept the Amendment, which makes the intention perfectly clear.

Amendment agreed to.

7.14 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I beg to move, in page 3, line 16, to leave out Subsection (4).
This is really a drafting Amendment to make quite clear what is intended. If the Sub-section were left in, it might be thought, wrongly, in some way to qualify the authority which the Bill proposes to give in Clause 10 for the establishment of totalisators on dog racecourses. That
is not the intention, and my right hon. Friend thinks it would be more convenient that there should not be any reference to any Act in this Clause. The point to be remembered is that this Clause actually prohibits all pari mutuel betting on a track except by the two totalisators. A bookmaker on the track cannot go into the pari mutuel betting. If we leave in the words, it might be thought that there was some proviso of that kind, so that I think the Committee would be well advised to accept the Amendment.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: I and several of my hon. Friends, believing that the intention of the Government had not been carried out, put down this Amendment, and I am desired by all my hon. Friends to thank the Government for accepting it.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

7.16 p.m.

Mr. G. BRAITHWAITE: Before the Committee parts with this Clause, it gives another opportunity which we should not be slow to seize, of obtaining from the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary a more definite statement than was vouchsafed to us this afternoon when we were discussing the question of pool betting. The Committee will remember that certain hon. Members, notably the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), in very powerful speeches, put their case for some elucidation of the situation in which pool betting stands under this Bill. It would be improper for me to recapitulate that argument, but I think I should be in order in reminding the Committee that we have not yet heard from the Front Bench why, in this vital matter, the Bill was drastically altered before it was even introduced in another place. That Amendment having been defeated, it is important that the Committee should be told, now that the first Sub-section of the Clause stands as 'it does, reading that:
No pari mutual or pool betting or business std] be carried on on any track",
exactly what the Government mean by the words "pool betting." I confess that to me they do not define anything par-
ticularly definite, and it would be of great advantage, certainly to me and possibly to other hon. Members in the Committee at this moment, if, before parting with this Clause, we could have from the Front Bench a definition in no uncertain terms as to what the term "pool betting" is deemed to mean.

CLAUSE 4.—(Licensing authorities.)

7.17 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 18, to leave out "councils," and to insert "justices of the peace."
The Amendment shows to Members of the Committee quite plainly what is really intended. If we were to take the question of licensing out of the domain of the councils, and put it into the hands of the justices of the peace, the matter would come before a judicial body which was used to dealing with licensing matters. Most hon. Members must be aware of undesirable matters being raised in cities and boroughs at council elections, and from that point of view the magisterial bench would be the better body to deal with this question.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: In Committee upstairs many of us, on what was the major discussion on Clause 1, urged very strongly the undesirability of the licences for these tracks, whether they are greyhound tracks or any other tracks which may require licensing under this Bill, being granted by local authorities. Many of us thought that the right solution of the problem was that which was urged so eloquently on the Second Reading by the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) when he said that there ought to be a national betting control board to deal with greyhound racing analogous to the one which deals with horse racing. For reasons which seemed to him to be good but which to most hon. Members seemed to be inadequate, the Home Secretary rejected that proposal. He was only enabled to reject it through the votes of those who ordinarily opposed him politically. The majority of Conservative Members of the Committee were against the Home Secretary on that occasion. Seine of us were animated with the desire to set up some body which would make it certain that any abuses
connected with this extension of gambling—because frankly the legalisation of the totalisator is an extension of gambling, although it is an alternative form of gambling which many of us think is a desirable alternative—should be safeguarded by the existence of a body which would be technically competent to safeguard it. We felt that in any event the local authorities were not the most suitable persons for that technical supervision, but to my profound regret the Home Secretary did not accept the proposal which stood in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Aston (Captain A. Hope).
We desired to exclude these matters from consideration in local council elections. This is the second occasion that the Home Office have been concerned recently with a Bill raising the question of local option. It will be remembered that the original Bill legalising the cinema on Sundays contemplated the decision being taken by the local council. Ultimately, as a result of the obvious feeling in the House, that proposal was abandoned, and the Bill which finally became law merely made the council the initiators and left the decision to a referendum of the local government electors. That obviously is an expensive method and not one that one wants to introduce generally, but for a variety of reasons it was thought to be good on that occasion. Here we are proposing in this Bill something which the House very definitely would not have in connection with Sunday cinemas, namely, introducing something that might disturb local politics.
The Government ought to think very carefully indeed over the Amendment which stands in the name of three Conservative Members and the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) who has actually moved it. I used to be a councillor in the borough of Wimbledon where there is now a greyhound racing track. Though the track was actually established after I ceased to be a councillor, I well remember, when living near Wimbledon, as I did at the time, the tremendous agitation, the fears expressed, rightly or wrongly, and the general disturbance which for the time being existed in local politics. As far as I am aware, now that the track is there, the objection has vanished. I have never
heard any residents in Wimbledon, and I know many, complain that there was any issue tending to dominate the local elections. In that case, there was no power on the part of the local council to stop them.
Under this Bill we are going to authorise local authorities to grant licences. It is true that the local authorities will not be too local, because it is to be the county councils and the county borough councils. In the case of county councils the decision will be taken or may be taken very largely by people who have no very immediate concern. But in the county boroughs, which are very much smaller areas, I have not the slightest doubt that if there be a question of granting or refusing to continue a licence to a greyhound track, it may become a very acute and undesirable issue in local politics. It is because I wish to avoid the introduction of what might be an undesirable factor into local politics, that I think it would be very desirable, if the decision could be referred to a judicial tribunal whose position as magistrates could not be affected by the decision they took, whereas the position of councillors might be affected by their decision. Here is a case where, clearly, we ought to protect, as far as we can, those councillors from any form of pressure which may, in some circumstances, be undesirable in form. I hope that the Government on this occasion will give their best consideration to the proposal to transfer the responsibility from the local authority to the magistrates, who would be able to deal with the matter in a far more judicial way without the risks I have indicated.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. HANNON: I wish to add a few words in support of the Amendment. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has said, and think that it would be deplorable if matters affecting the licensing of greyhound tracks were to be dragged into local municipal affairs. It would be far better from the point of view of the sound administration of this Measure after it becomes an Act if these matters were referred to the justices of the peace instead of to the local council. We are all familiar with the variety of subjects which arise in the process of an election for municipal councils. I see
the Solicitor-General is on the Front Bench and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough, the Under-Secretary at the Home Office is sitting beside him. They must be familiar with the difficulties and embarrassments which beset local municipal elections. If we are now to add to the difficulties of local elections the question whether a licence should be issued in the case of a greyhound track we shall add one more difficulty and trouble to the administration of our municipal councils.
The Amendment has real substance in it. I am not anxious for one moment, I assure the Solicitor-General, to embarrass the Government in getting this Measure through. I believe that a Measure of this kind is necessary in order to co-ordinate and regularise betting in this country, but, at the same time, I hope that His Majesty's Government will not do anything which will bring into conflict with really sound administration on local authorities matters which may cause disturbance in many of our districts. I can easily imagine in my own city a councillor standing for a particular ward in which he would be continually questioned by the advocates for a particular greyhound racing track, whether he would vote for the licensing of the track or the termination of its licence. This sort of question ought to be kept outside local politics. Nobody knows better than those responsible for the administration of His Majesty's Government the burden which at present rests upon local authorities in this country, the immense activities on which they are engaged, and how necessary it is not to overload the machine, and those concerned with the conduct and direction, of local administration. It will be wise, with any limitation it is desirable to impose and any re-arrangement of the machinery of the Bill, to take this matter out of the administration of the local council and give it to some executive authority, and not throw into the maelstrom of local politics the question of whether or not the licensing of tracks is to he carried on successfully and efficiently in this country.

7.30 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: All these questions are decided by the local authorities on the balance of advantage or disadvantage. Everyone would concur in the view that it is undesirable
to bring these matters within the ambit of local elections, but the Government have considered the matter very carefully and have come down on the side of making the councils of the counties and county boroughs the authorities for granting licences. It is true that they are elected bodies but, on the other hand, their establishment as licensing authorities must be read in conjunction with Clause 6, which deals with the points that the licensing authority has to consider before it grants a licence. I cannot anticipate the discussion which we may or may not have on Clause 6, but it may be for the convenience of Members to remind them that the licensing authority has to decide the question on certain very definite issues. It is not a question whether they think it is a good thing to have a track or not in their area. That question does not arise. It is suggested that a candidate might be asked whether he thought it would be a good thing to have a dog racing track in the area and whether he would vote for it. Of course, we cannot prevent silly questions from being asked. That certainly would not be a relevant question, because under Clause 6 the licensing authority has to consider the amenities of the locality, the traffic problem, and the comfort and health of those who live in the district.
It would not be a case of fighting elections on the moral issue of dog racing tracks. That does not arise, nor does the question of revocation arise. Clause 15 carefully lays down the grounds on which a licence may be revoked, and there is provision for appeal if the occupier whose licence is revoked has a grievance. There is not the fear of local politics being poisoned, as some hon. Members think, at any rate not by this question, although it may be poisoned in other directions. The Government have tried carefully, and I think successfully, to define the issues that have to be considered in the granting or refusal of a licnce.

Mr. LOGAN: Is it not possible that on local government bodies that a certain committee, it may be the town planning committee or some other committee, may express views and certainly that would have influence in regard to the question of the granting or refusal of a licence? Would not a judicial body be more impartial? Influence could be
brought to bear on the committees of a corporation, but that objection would not arise if the matter were dealt with by a judicial body.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I am afraid that we are getting on to rather dangerous ground. I would not like to say what kind of bodies may or may not be influenced. The councils are composed of responsible people. When the question arises whether the licensing should be in the hands of justices or the councils, I would point out that we have restricted the grounds on which a licence may or may not be granted to very narrow issues, and those issues are well within the province of the councils. The responsible body on the council would be able to make up its mind whether the amenities of the district, or the traffic or the health of the district are going to be affected. I do not think that the justices would have as much information on these points as the members of the council.

Mr. LOGAN: The authorities would have to place the information before them.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Then why should not the authorities use the information first hand? I admit there is a great deal to be said on both sides. The Government have to make up their minds one way or the other and they have made up their minds to leave it to the councils, and their decision has met with general approval so far as I know, except for the moving of this Amendment, which we cannot accept.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I am in agreement with the Under-Secretary in approving of the Government's decision. Some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) may have been relevant, but there is no point in them now. With regard to the question of the relative merits of the justices and the councils, I would point out that there are many justices who have no knowledge of local administration and very little interest in it. They are not in possession of the knowledge which is possessed by the popularly elected councils on such questions as health, interference with educational institutions, town planning, etc. The popularly
elected councillors have all the information at their disposal, and they are the right body to determine whether or not a licence should be granted. The Amendments which stand in the name of the Home Secretary ought to give satisfaction to those hon. Members who think that the councils ought not to have the responsibility. The councils would be able to delegate their authority to the standing joint committees, who are in no way influenced by local elections.
If the local authorities do delegate their functions to the standing joint committees, I think that would be a better arrangement than allowing the matter to be dealt with by the justices. I am not aware that a man becomes a member of a standing joint committee because his wife has been able to give a large donation to party funds. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or he is leader of the local Labour party!"] I do not care whether he is leader of the local Labour party or the Conservative party. The people who serve the interests of the district have the power in the first instance to grant or refuse a licence, and they will have the alternative power to delegate their authority to the standing joint committee. That is perhaps the best solution that the Home Secretary could find. Those who fear that it is going to be an annual squabble at municipal elections whether or not a greyhound track shall be started or whether certain people shall be elected, need not fear. We have a huge horse racecourse in Doncaster and we have just passed through a municipal election, but I never heard the racecourse mentioned. The racecourse is owned by the municipality, and any profits derived from it come to the municipality. Nobody ever mentioned the racecourse at the municipal election. They are not interested except that they would like it to be a little more profitable. I do not think that people will be particularly interested in the question of dog racing tracks.

Mr. HANNON: That is not an analogous case.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I think the Home Secretary's series of Amendments meet the case, and I hope that he will stand by them.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I will not say that I was disappointed by the reply of
the Under-Secretary, because I knew more or less what it was going to be. As there was no valid reason for the proposal in the Bill, I knew that it would tax even his ingenuity to give one. My views on this question are well known to anyone who was in the Committee. The placing of the power in the hands of the county arid borough councils is without exception the worst feature of the Bill. To me it makes the difference between a good Bill and a bad Bill. With that feature in it I must oppose the Bill. If the Amendment were carried I should be prepared to support it. Before advancing the main reason why I think the councils are not a proper body for this purpose, I should like to reply to the argument advanced by the. Under-Secretary. He may not know it, because I do not think he has ever sat on a local authority, but most people in this House know perfectly well that Clause 6 is not worth the paper on which it is written. Whatever regulations are laid down to restrict the reasons for the local authority granting or refusing a licence for a greyhound track, they will decide the matter on the question of principle and they will adjust their reasons Afterwards to fit their decisions.
I am not saying this in any derogation of the councils. If they do not want a greyhound track in a certain place, or, alternatively, if they do, it is quite easy to find reasons, either of health, scenery or that much abused word planning to suit their object. What is going to happen—whether Clause 6 remains in the Bill or not does not matter in the least—is that you are going to have a dog fight between those who want dog racing 1:racks and those who do not. When the Authority have settled the matter on the question of principle they will find reasons under Clause 6 and later, if necessary, under Clause 15, to square in with their decision. I hope the Home Secretary will not think that I am overstressing the point when I say that I do not believe that many members of local authorities in this House, even those who differ from me entirely in my views, would differ with me vitally on that point. That was the only justification which the Under-Secretary thought fit to put up.
Coming to the question of what the authority should be, I think that local government in this country—and I have never concealed my opinion—is in a
parlous state very largely because it is overworked with the machinery at its disposal. If you are going to pile more and more tasks on to the councils, whether they are borough councils, county councils or district councils, you will find that the time will not be far distant when the machinery will break down, and still more when you give them administrative work on what is, in effect, decisions of policy. I frankly admit that I do not think the, magistrates are an ideal authority, but I think they are a shade better than the councils. I made it perfectly clear upstairs that as this was a national problem and a National Government were setting up a national scheme in regard to organised gambling, there should be a national tribunal to deal with it. That suggestion was turned down.
I do not think the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) was doing his own abilities and his own knowledge of this subject justice when he tried to bring in the analogy of the Doncaster racecourse. He knows that that course has been there for years and years; it is a standing feature of that part of Yorkshire, recognised and accepted as such, and there are no interests playing on one side or the other. It is not an analogy. These new greyhound tracks are the playthings of large moneyed interests. It has been hinted, indeed even more than hinted, that these large moneyed interests are not always too scrupulous as to how they employ their money. Do hon. Members mean to tell me that they are not going to use every form of log rolling, lobbying and pressure on local councillors? When anyone condemns the local authority as unsuitable, someone asks, "Do you accuse them of wholesale bribery?" Of course not.
There have been unfortunate incidents, not justified by the name of bribery, where money does have an influence which all sections in the country regret. Where you have large vested interests of this kind and a, matter which has to be decided at popular elections, I beg the Government to disabuse their mind of any idea. that it will not be an issue at the election. When you have moneyed interests free to do what they like and bring what pressure they like on electors you are bound to have undesirable incidents and decisions. The argument in favour of giving this duty to the county council will not hold water. It is not in
fact going to be decided on any question of the amenities of the area, the traffic problem or the educational facilities. If you have an outside tribunal, non-elected, all these matters can be put before them, and it is not necessary for the people who are in closest touch with them to be the deciding authority. You should have an impartial body.
The hon. Member for the Don Valley was not complimentary to magistrates. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), in another connection, was even less complimentary. I agree that there is a great deal in what is said against magistrates. They have deteriorated since both parties began to make political appointments; when politics not ability is the guiding factor in the appointment of magistrates you are not going to get a perfect tribunal. But that applies still more to county and borough councils. This is a matter which should be taken out of party politics; indeed, it is not a party question, and it should be taken out of all forms of politics. You want a judicial and impartial body, as far as you can get it, who will hear the evidence on both sides and will of be affected by the fear of votes or any pressure which might be exercised.
I sincerely believe that if the Bill goes through as it is in this respect you will be dealing a severe blow at local government in this country. I shall not mind that much because reform is long overdue, but you will also get this particular thing into such a muddle—different local authorities will have different ideas and regulations—that you will make confusion worse confounded. In all seriousness, I beg the Government—I know they have said that it is useless, that we may plead and talk or do anything else, and they will pay absolutely no attention to what any of us say on this or any other subject—still I beg them to consider whether there is not some way of modifying this most obnoxious proposal and of putting in some body capable of doing this work adequately and efficiently.

7.51 p.m.

Captain DIXON: I would not waste much time on this Amendment were it not for the fact that it is one of the greatest importance. I was surprised to hear such a good judge of racing as the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T.
Williams) compare a question of the tote in dog racing to the great meeting at Doncaster, which he so often frequents. There is one great difference between the case we are discussing and the Doncaster meeting. The Doncaster meeting is run under the Jockey Club. It is the Jockey Club who sees that things are carried out properly, and, if the corporation or anyone else in Doncaster wished anything incorrect to be done, the Jockey Club, as the hon. Member well knows, would stop the licence and the thing would end. The real mistake which the Government have made in this Measure is that they ought to have insisted on the greyhound people setting up a body similar to the Jockey Club. If they did not then the Government could have said, "We will have nothing to do with you, you are not a sporting institution, you are merely a commercial institution."
This is a most serious Amendment. We are dealing with big money in the greyhound business, and anyone who has been through a municipal or borough election knows that where there is big money it sometimes talks. You cannot convince me that attempts will not be made on councillors and local bodies dealing with this matter, and I am afraid that in some cases members of a local body will unfortunately be corrupted. If the Government cannot set up a body like the Jockey Club, let them set up a judicial body. I will not say anything about magistrates, although in my own experience I have found corruption in magistrates who on the one side wanted you to have too much drink and who on the other side would not allow you to have a drink at all. I am satisfied that there can be corrupt magistrates. I would go further than the Amendment. Where such big money is involved, as in dog racing, the county court judge should be the arbitrator. I ask the Government whether they cannot meet us halfway and allow the county court judge to be the authority. It would save local councils a great deal of trouble and certainly save a great deal of corruption and work for lawyers afterwards. I feel so strongly that if it goes to a Division I shall certainly vote for the Amendment.

7.55 p.m.

Captain HEILGERS: I do not regard the appointment of county councils as a serious error on the part of the Govern-
ment. I have been a member of every body which has been referred to in this discussion for more than 10 years. I should like to know what justices of the peace are referred to. Is it the borough justices of the peace or the petty sessional division justices? Surely the area they have to watch is far too small for them to have any picture of the conditions of the whole county. There is a body called the Licensing Committee of Quarter Sessions. I do not know whether the hon. Member has that in view, but it might be a possible alternative. The Government, however, in deciding to give county councils the control, and in particular the Standing Joint Committee, are doing the right thing. Half the Members of the Standing Joint Committee are non-elected and are justices of the peace; therefore, the Government are going half way to meet the Amendment. Further, the other half do supply the necessary knowledge about health, amenities, traffic—

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: The hon. and gallant Member must bear in mind that the proposal does not give the power to the Standing Joint Committee. It merely says that the county council, if it thinks fit, may delegate this power to the Standing Joint Committee.

Captain HEILGERS: I agree that in actual terms it does not direct the county council to remit their power to the Standing Joint Committee, but I think it can be taken that generally that will certainly be the ease. But if the county council decide to remit the power to a committee of their own elected representatives, surely men who spend their lives in dealing with problems of health and education, and everything else which comes before them, are better qualified than men like justices of the peace, who are only concerned with the actual administration of the law.

7.57 p.m.

Sir RICHARD MELLER: I am at a loss to understand the observations made by one or two hon. Members with regard to local government authorities. The county council might decide this matter in the first instance, or it might refer it to the general purposes committee, who could determine the sort of committee to deal with it. Whether it is the Standing Joint Committee or some other committee of the county council. it seems to
me that the proposal gives every opportunity for avoiding any attempts which might be made by the so-called moneyed people who have come into this business. I have no doubt that the Government are right in the proposal embodied in the Clause. Magistrates have but a limited area; the county council has a wide area; and any Member of this House who has ever had an opportunity of being present at Brewster Sessions, when it is alleged that money talks, will no doubt remember not only those who were presenting applications for licences but those who were opposing, with all the prejudices which apply in those cases, and would desire that the matter should be removed to an atmosphere where none of these things could happen. When you have taken a course of presenting a matter before the local government authority you have taken the best means of getting a decision which takes into consideration the amenities arid general advantage not of one particular district but of the county as a whole. Therefore, I shall have very great pleasure in supporting the proposal in the House and without.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. G. BRAITHWAITE: I have listened with interest to the speeches of the last two hon. Members, who have practical experience in this matter. But in spite of those speeches I am unconvinced and I should like to see the Amendment accepted. Frankly I say that I shall be accepting something which I regard as second best, because hon. Members who sat in the Committee upstairs will remember the very lengthy Debate which we had on the first Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Aston (Captain A. Hope), in which we suggested the setting up of a control board. In that discussion there were advanced many of the arguments for and against licensing tracks by local authorities.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State said to-day something with which I found myself in disagreement. He said that he did not think it was a particularly relevant or strong point to hold that local elections were going to be wrongly influenced or influenced at all by the raising of the issue of the licensing of greyhound tracks. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that such questions would not be relevant that Clause 6 is the Clause which would
govern the attitude of local authorities, and indeed of local candidates, to this question. But how often are all the questions which may be relevant dealt with at election meetings? A candidate will not be asked, "Do you consider that the amenities in this district will be adversely affected by the setting up of a track in this area? Do you think the effect upon education and health will be bad? Do you think there will be traffic congestion if a track were established at this or that point?" Candidates will be asked, "Are you in favour of a greyhound track, Yes, or No?" It will be of no avail for the candidate to launch forth into an exposition of Clause 6 of this Bill. In the first place there will be very few candidates who would be aware of what Clause 6 says, or what their duties are in that connection.
We have been told that the county councils should not carry out this work. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) is often accused of being adverse to local authorities or frequently critical of them. That is quite true. It is, however, relevant to remind the Committee of the views of a local authority which will be listened to with respect here. I refer to the London County Council, which recently expressed itself in no uncertain terms on this very matter and endeavoured by resolution to relieve itself of the duty which would be imposed upon it by this Bill. Again, hon. Members who were not with us upstairs when we were considering Clause 1 would do well to read the Debate upon the first Amendment. They will read there an extremely grave speech delivered by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who, in far stronger language than anyone has used here on this side, said he believed that local authorities could be corrupted in this particular matter. He went on to quote certain instances in his own city and the city of the Home Secretary, Glasgow, to strengthen his point in that connection.
The hon. Member for Mitcham (Sir R. Meller) told us, I think truly, that if the councils have to perform these duties the matter will first of all be referred to the general purposes committee of the council, who will decide what is the best procedure under which this licensing work can be carried on. But that does not re-
move our main objection that local elections are likely to have an undesirable element introduced into them. Everyone knows that when a councillor is submitting himself to the electors at the end of a three years' term of office, if he is asked A. question about housing in his area and he replies, "Oh I am not on the housing committee, and I cannot answer," that is regarded as no excuse whatever by the electors. It will be quite futile for any Member to try to get out of his responsibility by saying that this licensing work has been delegated by the local authority to some committee or sub-committee.
This House wisely decided, when we were discussing Sunday cinemas, that it would be undesirable for that question to enter into local council elections. I think it is equally undesirable that this matter of track licensing should do so. I know that it varies from one area to another, but there are at least some areas in the country in which dog tracks are situated, attended very often by 2,000 people all of whom live in one ward, who could swing the election in that ward on that one issue. It is far better that local elections should remain to be fought on such great matters as housing and health and social problems generally. To introduce this cross-current into local politics, undesirable as it will be from the point of view of the cleanliness of local government, is the more undesirable because it will put yet further burdens on an administration which has great responsibilities already.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. R. T. EVANS: We appear to have discussed this matter rather in vacuo, because there are already established a number of dog-racing tracks. We were told in the Standing Committee by those who were competent to express an opinion that in their judgment there were already twice as many tracks as there ought to be. Therefore this matter will irrupt itself into local discussion simply on the occasion of the first granting of a licence. Subsequent to that the conditions laid down in the Bill give guidance in the matter of revocation or renewal of the licence, and in the matter of revocation there is always the possibility of an appeal to quarter sessions. The issues that are going to arise, the conditions which are going to determine whether or not a licence be granted, are essentially
those conditions which appertain to the functions of a county council or borough council—questions of health, of amenities, traffic, the question of planning, and the probable requirements in the matter of land for development in the future. Those questions have been entrusted to certain bodies and the only conditions which can concern them in the granting of a licence is whether those conditions are going to be infringed. There may be a slight irruption into local politics but it will Le only once. The revocation or continuance of a licence will be determined by conditions set up in the Bill, and there is an appeal to quarter sessions. There is a great principle involved here. If it is a question of corruptibility, why trust the local authorities with any responsibility at all? This is rather a sham fight, and I hope we shall come to the decision without further delay to support the Government.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: I appeal to the Government to reconsider their position, not because I believe that the local council will be any more corrupt or that at council elections the issue will be whether dog tracks should exist here or there. In fact what we are doing here is discussing for the first time certain conditions of permitted betting. By this Clause we are putting into the hands of the local authority the right to say whether or not certain additional betting facilities shall be provided for the public in any given area. In the past we have always allowed our magistrates to say whether or not the grounds for the granting of a licence are sufficient. We have always placed this power in the hands of some judicial authority, whether small or large. I believe that to put this matter into the hands of a local council or body of councillors, probably elected with no qualification of knowledge of the law but sometimes because of their ignorance of it, will be a very dangerous precedent to set up. I am convinced that once you give that power in this matter you will in future have great difficulty in denying power in directions of much greater importance. My reason for that argument is the very document which in my submission has convinced the Government more than anything else of the necessity for these words. That is the document signed by Mr. Harry Pritchard, Secretary of the Association of Municipal Corporations, in which it is stated:
That this Association, representing the councils of boroughs throughout England and Wales, has for several years urged the importance of legislation giving to these councils further control over the establishment and continuance of dog-racing tracks, particularly over the protection of amenities, and they regard it as essential in the public interest that the administration of the Bill, as far as it relates to these matters, should be in he hands of such councils.
That may or may not be true, but one thing certain is that the matter was never discussed by any local authority throughout the country. These orders were merely received by the local town clerks and they were despatched to their respective Members of Parliament under the instructions of the national secretary, Mr. Harry Pritchard, and did not conform to any decision taken by the local authorities as to whether or not the licensing of dog tracks should come under their supervision. I am convinced that if the Home Secretary dealt with the matter on the basis that he is for the first time introducing legislation which is permitting certain betting facilities under certain conditions, he would not under any circumstances allow that power to be vested in the hands of councils. It is a judicial matter and should be decided by judicial authorities.

8.15 p.m.

Major MILLS: As one who does not-very often trouble the Committee I would like on this occasion to ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary to stand firm on this matter. I know nothing about the work of the county borough councils, but I have been a justice for 31 years and a member of a county council for 27 years and I have no hesitation in saying that the county council is far the better body for this purpose. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Sir It. Meller). I need not repeat what he has said, but I should like to emphasise the point that the benches of justices, if there is any difference of opinion in the locality, are very much in the middle of the trouble, whereas the county council is drawn from a very large area and will be able to give dispassionate consideration to the problem. Further, there is the point already made by the Under-Secretary, though not particularly emphasised, that the county councils have at their disposal the advice of experts. They have experts
on roads, on health, on town planning, and all these people will be at their disposal when they are considering the question of whether a track should be permitted or not. The magistrates have no such help. I, therefore, sincerely hope

that the Government will remain firm in resisting this Amendment.

Question put, "That the word councils' stand part of the Clause.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 9.

Division No. 382.]
AYES
[8.17 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Gibson, Charles Granville
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Adams, D. M (Poplar, South)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Goff, Sir Park
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Albery, Irving James
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gower, Sir Robert
Meller, Sir Richard James


Apsley, Lord
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Milner. Major James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greene, William P. C.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Moison, A. Hugh Elsdale


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middiesbro',W.)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Banfield, John William
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morgan, Robert H.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Grimston, R. V.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Bernays, Robert
Groves, Thomas E.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Grundy, Thomas W.
Morrison, G. A (Scottish Univer'ties)


Blindell, James
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Morrison, William Shepherd


Bossom, A. C.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Boulton, W. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Munro, Patrick


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hail, Georgs H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald


Braithwaite, Maj, A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Harbord, Arthur
Orr Ewing. I. L.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks..Newb'y)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Paling, Wilfred


Burghley, Lord
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Parkinson, John Allen


Burnett, John George
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Peake, Osbert


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pearson. William G.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hepworth, Joseph
Penny, Sir George


Cape, Thomas
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Percy, Lord Eustace


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Petherick, M.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Horobin, Ian M.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pybus, Sir John


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh,S.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)
Radford, E. A.


Clarke, Frank
Hume. Sir George Hopwood
Ramsay. capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Cobb. Sir Cyril
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel. J.
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Ray, Sir William


Cook, Thomas A.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Copeland, Ida
Jamieson, Douglas
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Jenkins, Sir William
Rickards, George William


Crashley, Brig.-General A. C.
Jesson. Major Thomas E.
Roberts. Aled (Wrexham)


Crooke, J. Smedley
John, William
Robinson, John Roland


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Curry, A. C.
Ker, J. Campbell
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Daggar, George
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leckie, J. A.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Davies, Stephen Owen
Liddall, Walter S.
Sassoon. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Denville, Alfred
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Despencer Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Dickie, John P.
Loftus. Pierce C.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Dobbie, William
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Doran, Edward
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Drewe, Cedric
Lunn. William
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Dunglass, Lord
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Edwards, Charles
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Soper. Richard


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J 


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Spender-Clay. Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
McKie, John Hamilton
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Stevenson, James


Ganzonl, Sir John
Magnay, Thomas
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Mainwaring, William Henry
Storey, Samuel


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maitland, Adam
Strauss, Edward A.


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Making, Brigadier-General Ernest
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Summersby, Charles H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Tate, Mavis Constance
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Wilmot, John


Thorne, William James
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Withers, Sir John James


Tinker. John Joseph
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Watt. Captain George Steven H.



Train, John
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Whyte, Jardine Bell
Sir Walter Womersley and Major George Davies.


NOES.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Moreing, Adrian C.



Gritten W. G. Howard
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)
Mr. Michael Beaumont and Mr. Pike.


Bill read a Second time.

8.24 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 3, line 36, at the end, to insert:
If a county council elect under the foregoing provisons of this section to delegate their functions under this Part of this Act to the standing joint committee, it shall be the duty of that committee to discharge those functions so long as the delegation is in force.
This Amendment is intended to meet a criticism made in another place. The county council is to have the right to delegate functions to the standing joint committee and it was thought that there might be some cases in which that arrangement would not work. It is only right that we should make clear the intention of the Measure in this respect, and it is in those circumstances that I ask the Committee to accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 5, insert:
(3) Any expenses incurred in the execution of this Part of this Act by a standing joint committee shall be defrayed by the council of the county and any expenses so incurred by any other joint committee shall be defrayed by the appointing councils in such shares as may be agreed."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

8.25 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, at the end, to insert:
() A standing joint committee to whom the functions of a county council under this part of this Act arc delegated under this section shall have such powers as are conferred on councils of counties and county boroughs by paragraph (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of this section, and accordingly references in that paragraph and in sub-sections (2) and (3) of this section to a council or councils shall be construed as including references to such a standing joint committee as aforesaid.

This Amendment will allow the standing joint committee to confer with the neighbouring authority, though it may not be the standing joint committee but the county council. It is only to make the machinery clear, and I do not think any question arises.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Notices of, and procedure with respect to, applications for licences.)

8.27 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 4, line 16, after "and," to insert
The effect of the Amendment is that as soon as may be after the passing of the Act the licensing authority are required to fix dates for the hearing of applications for licences, and thereafter they may fix dates as they think fit.

Amendment agreed to.

8.28 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in line 23, to leave out from "effect" to the end of line 24, and to insert:
on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-five.
When the Bill was introduced, it was hoped that the Bill would come into operation soon enough to allow the calendar year to be operated, but it is clear, from representations which I have received from a good many of the authorities dealing with the matter, that they would prefer that the 1st July should be the date on which it should come into operation. That would give ample time for all arrangements to be made, and. it
would give reasonable opportunity for all the interests concerned to put their points of view, and in future the year will run from the 1st July to the end of June.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 4, line 28, to leave out "local authority of the district," and to insert: "council of the county district or metropolitan borough."
This is a drafting Amendment designed to make it less onerous on the part of those who have to deal with local authorities. The Amendment makes it clear that the only local authorities which should receive notice of application are those which can make representations, namely, the council of the county district in which the track is situated, or, in London, the metropolitan borough council.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 4, line 30, to leave out "a town," and to insert "any."
This also is a drafting Amendment, and it alters the responsible authority under a town planning scheme to the responsible authority under "any" town planning scheme.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 4, line 42, at the end, to insert:
() Every such notice as aforesaid given in respect of any track to the licensing authority shall, until the hearing of the application to which the notice relates, he kept by the licensing authority at their offices, so as to be available, at any time during office hours, for inspection by any member of the public free of charge.
It has been represented to the Government that the requirements of this Subsection are not sufficient to enable interested persons to obtain information for the purpose of exercising their statutory right of Making representations to the licensing authority. This has been very carefully considered, and the Government think it may be desirable to provide further means for securing publicity, but that it ought to be sufficient if the same machinery is adopted for this purpose as is proposed in respect of applications for licences for existing tracks under Clause 7, Sub-section (3). The Amend-
ment accordingly proposes that notice of application for a licence given to a licensing authority should be deposited by that authority at its office and should be available for inspection by the public during office hours free of charge until this application is heard and determined. There would be no necessity for it to be kept after that period.

Amendment agreed to.

8.33 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 5, line 6, to leave out "local authority of the district," and to insert:
council of the county district or metropolitan borough.
This makes it clear which body should really make representations in respect of an application.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 10, after "any," insert "school or."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

CLAUSE 6.—(Discretion of licensing authority as to grant of licences.)

8.34 p.m.

Sir GERALD HURST: I beg to move, in page 5, line 38, to leave out "may," and to insert:
shall have absolute and uncontrolled discretion to grant, or upon any ground which it may think sufficient to.
This Amendment raises an important point, and it can be supported on grounds which, I think, ought to appeal to all parties in this Committee. When the Committee passed Clause 4, it sanctioned the choice of county and borough councils to be the licensing authorities. This Clause 6 has the marginal heading: "Discretion of licensing authority as to grant of licences." The issue before the Committee is whether that discretion should be a real or a sham discretion. I submit that, as it now stands, Clause 6 gives a discretion only in terms and not in substance. If the Committee will look at the grounds on which the licensing authority may refuse to grant a licence, they will realise that those grounds hardly ever arise. They would arise in only about one out of every 100 cases. They are entitled under the Clause as
drafted to refuse a licence where the coming of a track
would injuriously affect either the health or the comfort of persons residing in the neighbourhood of the track.
That would never occur for it is difficult to see why the introduction of a racing track would touch the health or comfort of anybody in a physical or direct sense. The Clause goes on to say:
or be detrimental to the interests of persons receiving instruction; or…would seriously impair the amenities of that neighbourhood.
If there were an actionable nuisance the track would not function in any case. The nuisance would be stopped, so that it is unlikely that a nuisance in this sense would be created. Why there should be "undue congestion of traffic," or why law and order should be prejudiced I do not know. They are contingencies which are also extremely remote. I say, therefore, that as the Clause stands the licensing authority would have practically no discretion at all. I suggest that the Committee would desire to see a real discretion and control. As the Clause is now drafted, it will be incompetent for a local authority to refuse to license a greyhound racing track upon the ground that in the opinion of the licensing authority the introduction of the track would be against the well-being of the neighbourhood or of the well-being of the people living in the neighbourhood. They cannot do it because it does not fall within the category of the grounds on which a licence can be refused. Some hon. Members may wish to see the discretion and the control a sham. If so, this Clause provides a sham discretion. If they want to have it a reality so that the licensing authority can consider the pros and cons of the incursion of a grey hound racing track, they ought to be in favour of giving complete and uncontrolled discretion to the local authorities. That is proper control, and it does seem to me to be the right thing, when it is proposed to give the great privileges and financial advantages which this Bill confers upon greyhound racing track companies, that there should be a real genuine popular control, and that that popular control and discretion should be exercised on any ground which the local authority think fit to put forward in resisting an application.
The object of my Amendment is to give absolute and uncontrolled discretion to
the local authority. That is more in accord with the view of those who want to see genuine local control over local conditions. The alternative has already been alluded to in a speech on an earlier Amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont), who said he had no doubt that the councils would first decide one way or the other, and then grope among the provisions of Clause 6 in order to find some legal pretext. That is probably what would happen. When a local authority or any other body has to have recourse to legal fictions to get out of a difficulty, it proves that the Act which they are trying to circumvent is badly drafted and ill-conceived. We should aim at having the control of the local authorities over the incursion of these greyhound racing tracks into an area. Rightly or wrongly, many local authorities may consider that these are pests which they wish to avoid. In other cases they may consider them blessings which they wish to have. Whichever view they take, they are entitled to give expression to it, but, as the Clause is drafted, it is a sham to suggest that the local authorities have discretion. With a view to making the discretion real and the local control a genuine local control, I move the Amendment.

8.40 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: If the Amendment were accepted, it would, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, give unfettered control to a local authority. It would, of course, immediately lay open for discussion the moral issue which Parliament has a right to decide, and has, in fact, as this Bill is drafted, decided. The moral issue is solved, and Clause 6 makes it clear under what terms the local authority should concern itself with this problem. It is on the question of amenities, public health and the preservation of law and order. The hon. and learned Gentleman made reference to the fact that he did not think public health was concerned. Undoubtedly it would be concerned if one of these things were placed next to a hospital. Nobody hut a local authority is in a position to decide a matter of that kind. In any case, it is Parliament's task, rightly or wrongly, to take up the moral issue and not to make it a dispute in local politics.

Amendment negatived.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: I beg to move, in page 5, line 43, to leave out paragraph (i).
If these words are allowed to stand they might give rise to considerable antagonism. Who is to say that the establishment of a, dog-racing track, unless in the case mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, that of a hospital, would injuriously affect either the health or the comfort of persons residing in the neighbourhood? Who is to define what is the neighbourhood of a track? I have a track in my division which is surrounded mainly by the heavy industry and working-class dwellings. About half-a-mile away from the entrance to the track is a Congregational chapel, and another mile and a-half away in the opposite direction is a Zion chapel. There is also on the opposite side of the road a literary society controlled by the Co-operative Wholesale Society. We can see that under the slightest possible pretext opponents to the granting of a licence would appear on behalf of their respective associations and claim that the establishment of a track would injuriously affect the health and comfort of the residents in the neighbourhood or would be detrimental to the interest of persons receiving instruction. A distance of one and a-half miles away would be regarded as in the neighbourhood of the track, because it is within the ward for which a member is elected to the local council, and the chapel would naturally he interpreted as being within the neighbourhood. That ward extends for three and a-half miles.
It is obvious that the word "neighbourhood" needs some further interpretation. I do not consider that any person should be allowed to oppose the granting of a licence on the ground that it would disturb the amenities of the neighbourhood. I am prepared to accept any reasonable opposition and to accept the wording of the Bill as it stands if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to include after "neighbourhood" the words "within a reasonable distance from." In the present circumstances what is there to prevent objection being made by a publican, for instance, within a quarter of a mile of a dog-racing track, who finds on racing nights his trade diminishes by 90 per cent. because of the existence of the track. Who is to say that he would not argue
that the track would be injurious to the health of the people and claim that a couple of bottles of Guinness would be to their advantage—so long as they drank it in his house? I agree that in the case of hospitals or nursing homes or schools no licence should be granted in the neighbourhood if the track would be injurious to those institutions, but who is to decide what is "the neighbourhood"? [Hoff. MEMBERS: "The local councils On local councils we have men of differing opinions and we know, in addition, that already power is vested in the local council to decide whether or not a licence is to be granted, and that they will not consider the grant of a licence if it is likely to be injurious to any section of the community within the neighbourhood of the proposed track.
I am convinced that these words are not necessary, because we have already taken the precautions which the paragraph seeks to apply, and I am certain that if the words are left in a lot of difficulties will arise unnecessarily. The deletion of the paragraph would not make the slightest difference to the successful operation of the Clause, and in view of the entanglements in which this paragraph may involve local authorities I ask the Government to say that they should be deleted, or that the Home Secretary should accept a manuscript Amendment to insert after the word "neighbourhood" the words "within a reasonable distance."

8.47 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: We have already debated this subject threadbare, and I was not astonished to find that the hon. Member had no new argument to put before us. I will tell him why it is necessary to give a local authority power to decide that a dog racing track shall not be established in a given neighbourhood. While the hon. Member was speaking I was thinking of that delightful piece of sculptural work in Llandudno depicting "Alice in Wonderland." There is a big piece of land near there. I would not, like the hon. Member to suggest that a dog racing track should be established there. He would find that he would not "get away with" the proposal. Again, if there were spare land alongside Westminster Abbey, the people running dog racing tracks would not in the least mind estab-
lishing a track right up to the doors of Westminster Abbey itself. Consequently this paragraph is very necessary.

Mr. PIKE: The hon. Member had no objection to the presence of those persons who attempted to Approach Westminster on the occasion of a certain demonstration in order to incite the Members of this House to vote in a certain direction.

Mr. DAVIES: I will give another case. Let us put it on personal grounds. Would the hon. Member like the main gates of a dog racing track to be right up against his own doorstep? That is a test.

Mr. PIKE: I should have no power whatsoever to say whether I liked it or not if the authority to which this Part of the Bill refers decided that it should be put there; and as a matter of fact have a dog track within three-quarters of a mile of my home.

Mr. DAVIES: Three-quarters of a mile is a fairly good distance from a dog track.

Mr. PIKE: No, it is not.

Mr. DAVIES: I will give another argument. There are districts in every town in which the amenities are greater than in other parts. There are public parks there. Are not the local authority entitled to say, "We have bought this big slice of land and turned it into a public park where the people can play tennis and bowls and enjoy boating, and are we to have no right to say that a dog racing track shall not be established at the park gates?"

Mr. PIKE: If the hon. Member is asking me, I say quite frankly that it would be perfectly right to give the local authority the power to say that a dog racing track should not be established there, in so far as they are the owners of the property, but my hon. Friend is trying to apply this to property of which the local authority is not the owner, but which has been bought by somebody else for the specific purpose of a dog track.

Mr. DAVIES: Either the hon. Member is dull or I am, and I am satisfied that I am not. I will put the case again. Suppose there is a spare plot of land owned by a private individual outside one of the main gates of a park in Sheffield or Manchester. If the hon.
Member had his way, he would not give the local authority power to say that a dog racing track should not be established there.

Mr. PIKE: I voted against it just now.

Mr. DAVIES: There are spots in this country in which every individual delights on account of their picturesqueness. There are spots which nobody, whatever his political or religious opinion, would like to see desecrated by a dog racing track. But I am going to say that, if I know the people behind this dog racing business, they would take no heed at all of that feeling, but would plant the track just wherever it would make a profit. Therefore, I claim that the local authority ought to be given the powers contained in this paragraph. Apart from politics I am a little sorry that the hon. Member does not stand for that bigger thing in life, the welfare of the community, when he talks on this subject.

Mr. PIKE: That is not fair.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) has moved this Amendment, which stood in my name. I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) who, as far as I could understand what he said, was addressing himself to another Amendment.

Mr. DAVIES: You were not in when I spoke.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I heard most of what the hon. Member said. He was addressing himself to the next Amendment, in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Lieut.-Colonel Applin), which relates to amenities.

Mr. DAVIES: Would it not offend the comfort of individuals who are sitting in a. park to have a dog racing track at the front gate of the park?

Mr. WILLIAMS: In the main the hon. Member was addressing himself to paragraph (ii), which relates to amenities. I put down my Amendment because I wanted to know what paragraph (ii) meant. The Committee did not receive much enlightenment from the hon. Member for Westhoughton. He says there are delightful places in this country which ought not to be desecrated by dog tracks. I have seen altogether four dog tracks,
one at Brixton which I sometimes pass on my way to my constituency but which I have never visited, and three which I have visited. Of those, one was built for the Olympic games, one was built as a football ground, and the other, the one I know best, at Wimbledon, where I used to be a councillor, was built specifically for the purpose of dog racing. The track which was built originally for the Olympic games was opened, when built, by the King of this country and the President of the French Republic. Structurally it was not regarded as offending the amenities of the district of Hammersmith where it was, as it happened to be adjoining Wormwood Scrubs. I want to know what is the difference between that place at Wormwood Scrubs when used for the Olympic games, when used, as it might be, for a football ground, when used for other exhibitions, and when used for a dog racing track.

Mr. DAVIES: Will the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) take it from me that a dog racing track has been established among new property outside Manchester, and that the value of the new houses has deteriorated because of the establishment of that track?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Let us stick to my case for the moment. I was asking what was the difference in principle. Suppose someone opened a football ground near the property. The football ground would be largely attended, and people who attend football grounds make a good deal of noise. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not at night"] A football match lasts for an hour and a half. I live three-quarters of a mile from the Fulham football ground, and the River Thames and a good part of Putney intervenes between me and it, yet I can hear the noise. So far as my comfort is concerned, the football ground is as bad as any dog track I have passed. I want to know in what way these things affect the health of the people. There is nothing insanitary about dog tracks, as I understand them. They may affect the, comfort of a person in precisely the same way as a football ground, Lord's Cricket Ground, or the Oval.
I do not understand what is meant. The paragraph contains a phrase
detrimental to the interests of persons receiving instruction, or residing, in any school or institution in that neighbourhood.
I do not know whether on these tracks they race all day long but so far as I am aware they only race in the evening when the schools are closed. [An HON. MEMBER "When the children are in bed."] The question in this paragraph is not the interest of school children in bed but that of persons receiving instruction. Hon. Members, tackled on the question of people receiving instruction, talk about the same people in bed, and when they find they have slipped up there they talk about the question of comfort. They suddenly change their ground. We come to the question of people "residing in any schools or institutions in the neighbourhood." I do not know why that was put in. I see no difference between a child residing in a school and the same child residing in a cottage, their interests are identical.
These words are put in not, for any useful purpose, but to create a kind of prejudice. This paragraph is utterly useless. The ground is covered in the second paragraph. The hon. Member for Westhoughton did not say a single word on this paragraph that would not have been in order on the next. Why are these words brought in? I suggest that it is in order to create a general and vague atmosphere of prejudice, and that they do not mean anything. They are in the same category as a large number of resolutions passed at the annual conference of the Labour party. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Bristol?"] An hon. Gentleman refers to the Conservative conference. I was not at that conference, and I have never given notice of any resolutions at a Conservative conference, because I am not too much impressed. [An HON. MEMBER: "You were not at the Labour Party Conference."] No. I have never been asked, but I am living in hopes. I observe that wherever the conference is held they are always inclined to be brotherly with fraternal visitors. When you have your conference in Croydon, I will come as a fraternal delegate. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will tell us in what substance paragraph (i) differs from paragraph (ii) and for what purpose it has been inserted.

9.1 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Paragraph (i) provides for the licensing authority to refuse
to license a track if they are satisfied that the existence or the use of the track would injuriously affect the comfort or the health of persons in the neighbourhood, or be detrimental to the interests of persons receiving instruction or residing in any institution in the neighbourhood. I cannot help thinking that the Committee of the House of Commons is prepared to give the local authorities discretion in these matters which they know and with which they are in close personal contact. It is inconceivable that anyone should suggest that one of these tracks should be put in close proximity to a hospital or a school.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Has the Home Secretary hospitals in mind? They are not mentioned in the paragraph.

Sir J. GILMOUR: "Institution" covers a hospital. When people talk about things like football matches it must be remembered, as some hon. Members have said, that they are only temporary and open only at certain times of the day. They do not go on for long periods like racing on these tracks. In the circumstances, I do not propose to accept the Amendment.

Mr. PIKE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to the insertion of the words "within a reasonable distance from"?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what is the difference between paragraph (i) and paragraph (ii)?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The difference is that one follows the other.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: On a point of Order. Do I now move the Amendment standing in my name to leave out paragraph (ii)?

The CHAIRMAN: That Amendment is not selected. The next Amendment I select is that in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Aston (Captain A. Hope).

Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. I was asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aston (Captain A.
Hope) to move that Amendment. May I do so?

The CHAIRMAN: I was calling the names as they appear on the Order Paper. I called Captain Hope, and I now call Lieut.-Commander Tufnell.

9.4 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander TUFNELL: I beg to move, in page 6, line 6, to leave out, "result in undue congestion of traffic, or ".
This paragraph restricts the licence in cases of undue congestion of traffic. It is unnecessary. Surely this Bill deals with betting and not with traffic control. If there were such a Clause, suredy it should be in the Road Traffic Act, and should be applied to all forms of traffic, and should apply to football and other forms of sport. It seems to me absurd that, because a certain legitimate amusement of a great number of working men in this country is popular, there should be a possibility of the licence being removed from them, and that under this paragraph greyhound racing tracks should be penalised. I ask that this paragraph should be taken out because I think it is a restriction of our liberties and is irritating and vexatious. I trust that my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. HANNON: I support this Amendment. My reason for rising before was that when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aston (Captain A. Hope) left the Committee he asked me if I would move his Amendment, and I should have had great pleasure in doing so. It seems extraordinary that this condition should have been inserted in the Bill. In the immediate neighbourhood of Birmingham we have three large football clubs, namely Aston Villa—of which I have the honour to be president—West Bromwich Albion and the Birmingham Club. Of these three clubs, sometimes two, and nearly always one, have big matches during the football season. It might be said that immense congestion of traffic arises, but, if these clubs were in the unhappy position of having to apply for a licence, would they have to show that there would be no undue congestion of traffic in approaching their football grounds on the occasions of these
big matches? I do not think that my right hon. Friend ought to impose conditions on the local authority in issuing a licence for a racing track which are not imposed upon football clubs in carrying out their contests. As my hon. and gallant Friend has suggested, there is a tendency on the part of the Government to interfere too much with the discretion of local authorities in issuing these licences. To lay down a general discretion is quite appropriate, but when you tell the local authority that they are to have regard to the question of undue congestion of traffic, proximity to some institution or another, and a whole series of considerations of that kind, I think the central Government is going too far in limiting the discretion of the local authority. I would ask my right hon. Friend, therefore, if he cannot see his way—he has not done so very much in relation to this Bill—to accept the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. and gallant Friend.

9.9 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think that on consideration the Committee will agree that in this Bill, which of course deals with betting, it is right and proper that we should give to the local authority the opportunity of considering, having all the circumstances before them, whether they should or should not take certain steps to deal with this problem from the point of view of betting. Many of these tracks are put down next to great arterial roads, or in such circumstances as to create a considerable problem. This Bill, of course, is limited to those places where betting actually takes place. My hon. Friend, in speaking about Aston Villa, does not suggest that betting takes place at football matches—

Mr. HANNON: Oh, no. I would like to assure my right hon. Friend and the Committee that these football contests in Birmingham are conducted on the highest moral plane.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Be that as it may, at any rate we are dealing here with one problem, and that is a problem connected with betting at these large grounds. We are not now dealing with football grounds; that is a matter which perhaps might properly be dealt with another time; but here we are giving to the local authority power to consider these pro-
blems with the knowledge that they have of the local conditions.

9.11 p.m.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: May I ask the Home Secretary why it is necessary to have these special regulations in regard to dog racing tracks which do not apply to football grounds, which probably draw much larger bodies of people than greyhound racing tracks or other places for amusement and entertainment? Why is it necessary specially to have these regulations only for dog racing tracks? Why are they singled out for these special rules?

9.12 p.m.

Sir JOHN HASLAM: May I take it upon myself to say why restrictions are placed on dog racing tracks? It is because by this Bill we are conferring a great favour on a certain business. Instead of the State conferring benefits on football clubs and other organisations, the State collects a great deal of revenue from them, and they confer a benefit on the community; but he would be a very bold man who would say that dog racing tracks confer a benefit on the community. We are granting them by this Bill tremendous privileges, and we have a right to attach conditions to those privileges. I think that that answers the question of the President of the Aston Villa Club, and also that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor).

9.13 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: As one who has had considerable experience of local authorities, I think it is most desirable that, when a Bill of this kind is handed to a local authority finally to use their discretion as to the granting of licences under certain conditions, the House of Commons should lay down definitely and in no uncertain language its precise intentions. I have had enough experience of local councils to know that, when these matters come to be considered by a local council, the councillors naturally ask the town clerk what precisely the Act of Parliament says. The town clerk prepares a memorandum based upon the Act of Parliament, and local councillors as a rule are very 10th to go outside the Act and are not much inclined to take any risk that they can possibly avoid. this issue may seem to be like a matter of A B C, but the fact remains that a dog racing
track may be in a very awkward place so far as traffic is concerned. The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) quotes the Birmingham football clubs as an analogy to this case, but he knows very well that the Aston Villa Club, for instance, is down in Aston, outside the main stream of traffic, in a very nice secluded spot where no difficulty or congestion can arise. Again, the West Bromwich Club is at least three miles from the centre of Birmingham, where no undue congestion can arise. But in the case of a possible new dog track this question of congestion is one of supreme importance.

Mr. HANNON: Does the hon. Member suggest for a moment that in the ease of a dog racing track you would have the numbers of people varying from 50,000 to 70,000, who go to our football matches? You would never get that kind of congestion in connection with dog racing.

Mr. BANFIELD: I think the hon. Member, as President of Aston Villa, would be very pleased indeed if these crowds of 50,000 or 70,000 materialised every time Aston Villa played in public.

Mr. HANNON: They do.

Mr. BANFIELD: The hon. Member ought to know better. The numbers that he quotes are not the rule but the exception. In exceptional circumstances you may get crowds of that kind. After all, one is bound to be brought to the conclusion that in a gathering where betting is permitted somehow or other a different set of circumstances and a different atmosphere is created. I am quite willing to accept from him that football matches in Birmingham are conducted in an atmosphere of the highest possible morality, although when I was: in Birmingham they acted somewhat differently. But in a matter of this kind, with the institution of the totalisator and the facilities for betting, it is a fact that a different atmosphere is created. There is a tremendous difference, and I think it is wise to lay down definitely to local authorities what are the conditions under which licences should be granted. It will help them in their work and it will make the matter clear. Over and over again I have heard a committee of the local council say, "Why on earth do they not make clear in the Act of Parliament precisely- what it is they want us to do?" If in this Clause we are laying down
even the A.B.C. of it, it is better to err on that side than to leave it in uncertainty and doubt.

9.19 p.m.

Captain HEILGERS: I am not concerned with the atmosphere that is apparently created by the dogs. I wonder if the Under-Secretary has been to Wembley or Harringay or the White City and seen the crowds that arrive there. Great numbers of them arrive on foot. You see very little traffic on wheels of any sort, and you see very little congestion. I feel, therefore, that this is a matter upon which the Government might seriously consider giving way.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken and the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) have replied to their own arguments? They must be fairly optimistic if they anticipate that the numbers going to greyhound tracks will be likely to cause undue traffic. If the Bill gets on to the Statute Book, I anticipate that there will have to be a lot of char-a-banc rides and a great deal of organisation to get people to go to the tracks at all, except perhaps in thickly populated areas like London. It seems to me that this is merely granting to the local licensing committees the power that they should have, in the event of undue congestion, to deal with it. The local authorities know their own districts. Why deprive them of the power of dealing with traffic in their own neighbourhood? As far as I can see, there is no likelihood of any undue congestion where any new track may be established, as distinct from existing tracks. I think the Home Secretary is quite justified in giving power to the licensing authtority to take into consideration all the things that are likely to be a disturbing factor to the peace, contentment and tranquillity of any neighbourhood where a greyhound track may be established.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I am surprised to hear, even among my own colleagues, complaints of the facilities that are being given to these people. If wonderful facilities are being given, wonderful regulations also are being laid down. The Grand National creates commotion from the early morning until late at night three days in the week and the police
deal with the traffic, but I do not hear anyone complain of congestion. I thought it was the duty of the police to regulate traffic.

Mr. R. J. RUSSELL: Would the hon. Member suggest that the conditions that apply to the Grand National perhaps three times in one week should apply to dog racing tracks?

Mr. LOGAN: Nothing of the kind. But you would think it was a penal settlement that you were regulating. It is a business venture, and I want a fair and square deal to be given to it. Why should one particular form of sport be singled out because some people do not want to go to it? I would not go because I do not see any fun in it. But I know others who do and are pleased with the entertainment they get. It is far better than going to a public house and drinking their money. It is not necessary to insert a Clause in regard to traffic when the police regulate the traffic in our streets. I object to people being penalised simply because a few cars more or less might go into a particular street. I go to a football match every Saturday, but no one complains of congestion. The tramcar service is interfered with, but people do not grumble at the inconvenience. If it is not going to have a penal Clause attached to it, why have it at all? I think that common sense should prevail in this matter. The police in the city of Liverpool certainly will be able to see that there will be no congestion of traffic, for they will move it on. I think that this penalty Clause should be taken out.

Amendment negatived.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. HANNON: I beg to move, in page 6, line 7, to leave out from "traffic" to the end of line 8.
I move this Amendment with a good deal of hesitation, because I have not the least hope that my right hon. Friend will make any concession upon it. It seems to me that the whole of this condition affecting the issue of a licence by a local authority is a little too exactly detailed. How is a local authority to determine on. an application for a licence whether it would "seriously prejudice the preservation of law and order"? Surely that is a very vague and indefinite condition to
attach as an instruction in the Act to the local authority concerning the circumstances in which they may issue a licence. It is quite true, as the hon. Gentleman opposite has said, that we do wish to have Acts as definite as possible to make for ease of administration. Can you conceive anything more indefinite and exasperating for a local authority to define than a condition phrased in these vague terms—"seriously prejudice the preservation of law and order." If the Solicitor-General were to be asked to give a specific instruction to a local authority in regard to a particular application for a licence, I would like to see the terms of that instruction, informing a local authority how to exercise it and what interpretation they were to put upon that instruction. I hope that this elaborate and complex series of instructions to local authorities as to the circumstances of the issue of licences may be modified or left out of the Bill.

9.28 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The hon. Gentleman tells us that this is a very complex series of instructions to local authorities. I do not think that they are complex. I should have thought that they are quite common-sense instructions, every one of them. Moreover, we have chosen them to get over the difficulty which we discussed earlier on. The difficulty there was that the local authority might be moved by sentimental reasons or moral objections to betting in refusing a licence. We have said: "Let us lay down two or three standards which they must apply to a particular track, leaving out moral issues altogether." Now the hon. Gentleman complains that we are doing too much. I think it is a very reasonable thing to put in the words about the preservation of law and order. If the words were not in the Clause, it would mean that a local authority, though it knew that the establishment of betting facilities in a certain area would lead to trouble and would prejudice the preservation of law and order, yet would not be able to refuse a licence on those grounds. If you put the argument that way, it is clear that we ought to have words of this kind in the Bill. Moreover, the Committee have already passed Clause 5, and at the top of page 5 they will see that one of the persons who have the right to make representation to
the local authority on any application for a licence is the chief officer of police. If the chief officer of police, who is given a statutory right to make representations, is not to make representations about the preservation of law and order, I am not certain what is the use of inserting him as one of the persons to be consulted. We have agreed to that, and this is merely a corollary. It is one of the very restricted matters which the local authority have got to consider in discussing applications.

Mr. HANNON: I should like to ask whether in point of fact the insertion of these words does not suggest that the local authority are not competent to deal with the preservation of law and order?

Captain CROOKSHANK: It is not that the local authority are not competent, but if these words are not put in this would not be a satisfactory reason for refusing a licence. The local authority are perfectly competent to judge, but they would not be able to act on their judgment.

Amendment negatived.

9.31 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 6, line 12, to leave out from beginning to "or" in line 14, and to insert "under this part of this Act."
This Amendment is to meet the doubt expressed lest under the Clause in its original form a licence might be refused if an applicant had been convicted of some trivial offence. The Government have come to the conclusion that it would be desirable to try and meet this objection, and the new Amendment is moved for that purpose.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman given the Committee all the reasons for this Amendment? It seems to me that the words "involving fraud or dishonesty" are very definite and specific and rarely apply to the minor offences referred to. It seems to me that if a licence is to be granted to a certain body of people for the purpose of organising gambling for their own private gain, we ought at least to be sure that they are reasonably honest people and have not been convicted of fraud or dishonesty. [Interruption.] Then I have
misread the Amendment. The words to be deleted are, "under this or any other Act."

9.33 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Under paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Clause 6 the licensing authority may refuse to grant a licence in certain circumstances, and the hon. Member will see what the words are there. The Amendment proposes that this paragraph should read as follows:
(b) "if the applicant or, where the applicant is the corporate body, any director or the manager thereof, has been convicted of any offence under this part of this Act or of any offence involving fraud or dishonesty.
That is how it will now read. I would point out that even in respect of such an offence the licensing authority is not empowered to refuse a licence if it thinks an offence is trivial. It is hoped that this Amendment will really meet the criticism.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: It certainly does narrow the point down considerably if the licensing authority are now in fact to examine each individual case. I wonder whether the Home Office did ascertain exactly how many persons who are at present directors of greyhound companies have been convicted of fraud or dishonesty? Has the accumulation of that information had any effect on the right hon. Gentleman, or is it solely desired to deal with forthcoming applications for licences? Do we understand that this is merely an attempt to deal with the future and that it has no relation to existing directors or managers already controlling greyhound companies?

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. McCOROUODALE: I beg to move, in page 6, line 20, to leave out "or continuance."
I move the Amendment really to ask what exactly the words "or continuance" mean. It seems to me, on reading the Clause, that if there is a dog racing track in the area, and that area becomes scheduled under a town planing scheme the dog racing track can be shut up under that scheme. I should like to know whether that reading of "or continuance" is correct. If so, it seems to be a singularly harsh part of the Clause.

9.36 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: What this amounts to is that where a track is in an area which has been town planned, it has to conform to the planning arrangements. The whole question of town planning is a very intricate one, and there are all kinds of orders which are made, but there might very well be, for example, a case where a track had been established before the town planning scheme came into force, and no consent had been obtained from the planning authority. In that case, obviously, the consent of the planning authority would be required to enable the track to continue. I think that that is clear. There may be cases where a town planning authority has, in its town planning scheme, allowed a track to continue for a limited period, so that there again the planning authority should be consulted. But this particular Sub-section does not apply to the obligation of the person licensed in respect of an existing track. The existing track is covered by Subsection (4) of Clause 7. Generally speaking, this Sub-section is meant to deal with new tracks, that is to say, tracks that do not exist to-day but which make application for the first time. Obviously in that case they would be expected to come within the town planning scheme. In fact, knowing that a town planning scheme existed, they would know before they started to open the track in that particular area what the scheme was. The question with regard to existing tracks and existing town planning schemes can be raised on the next Clause.

Mr. McCORQUODALE: If I understand that this will not affect existing tracks, but only tracks which are likely to be started in the future, I would beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Captain CROOKSHANK: It might, if the existing tracks elected to apply for their licence under this Clause for seven years. It is more or less a reasonable assumption that all will take their five years' moratorium, at any rate, as a beginning.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment is a manuscript Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Twickenham (Brigadier-General Critchley)—In page 6, line 38, at the end, to insert:
()The licensing authority may refuse to grant a licence in respect of any track except upon the following conditions:—

(a) No dog race shall be run on a track in public on any other than the appointed days fixed in pursuance of this part of this Act.
(b) At all dog race meetings there shall be a minimum charge for admission of the public to the meeting of sixpence for each person.
(c) Not more than twelve dog races may be run on a track in public on any one day with the exception of the four Bank Holidays a year when there shall be allowed 24 races per day.


Provided that for the purposes of this Sub-section the expression the public shall not include persons engaged in the management of the track or contractors or persons having business connected with the management of the track, or owners or trainers of dogs engaged in racing on the track or representatives of the press, and the expression 'in public' shall be construed accordingly.
I think that the hon. and gallant Member ought to drop paragraph (b) of his Amendment, as we have already taken the decision of the Committee on that point. If he will move it with paragraph (a) and (c) only, I shall be prepared to accept it.

Sir ALFRED BUTT: On a point of Order. This is a very important Amendment and it is very difficult to follow it in manuscript form. Cannot we have it put before us in printed form?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that if the Amendment has to wait until it can be submitted in printed form, we shall have passed the point in the Bill where its insertion can properly be made. Manuscript Amenaments are not infrequently long in themselves.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Paragraph (c), which has to do with the number of meetings, is a question which has already been disposed of in Clause 1, and which I undertook to consider before the concluding stages of the Bill. In view of the Debate on Clause 1, I am not sure that this would not be a repetition also.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: All I can say is that Clause 1 is reported to this House without amendment, and that may be a ground for taking certain action with regard to Amendments. I do not think that I can go further.

Mr. THORNE: Is it not rather unfair that a long Amendment like this should be in manuscript form when the hon.
and gallant Member must have known last week that this Bill was to be taken in Committee to-day, and had plenty of time to put it upon the Order Paper?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I can assure the hon. Member that he is not the only one who is inconvenienced by long manuscript Amendments.

9.41 p.m.

Brigadier-General CRITCHLEY: I beg to move, in page 6, line 38, at the end, to insert:
the licensing authority may refuse to grant a licence in respect of any track except upon the following conditions:

(a) No dog race shall be run on a track in public on any other than the appointed clays fixed in pursuance of this part of this Act.
(b) Not more than twelve dog races may be run on a track in public on any one day with the exception of the four Bank holidays a year when there shall be allowed 24 races per day.


Provided that, for the purposes of this sub-section the expression 'the public' shall not include persons engaged in the management of the track or contractors or persons having business connected with the management of the track, or owners or trainers of dogs engaged in racing on the track, or representatives of the press, and the expression 'in public' shall be con-Anted accordingly.
As far as I read the Bill at the present time, on the days of betting any management could start greyhound racing at 10 o'clock in the morning if they so desired and carry on until 12 o'clock at night. This would destroy what many of us consider the sport of greyhound racing. On the question of profit from the totalisator, while it is negligible if it runs from 10 to 12 meetings a night, will begin to assume large proportions if you run 100 races a day as you are at liberty to do under the present Bill. That is why I move the first of these two paragraphs of the Amendment. First of all, if dogs are allowed to run every day of the week a situation will arise which they found in America when they tried to stop betting completely. As hon. Members know, they prohibited betting on all race tracks in certain States of America many years ago. They found it absolutely impossible to do so. I arrived at the racecourse outside New York where betting was completely prohibited. I went to a man who looked like a bookmaker and said that I wanted to bet and he replied "Deposit so much money with my friend outside, and you
can bet up to the limit of that sum." If you allow greyhound racing to take place on every day of the week betting is going to take place and I do riot think the law can stop it.

Mr. MAGNAY: On a point of Order. There is an Amendment standing in my name on page 132 dealing with this question. That Amendment is to Clause 9. Is not that the proper place to consider the question on how many days per week racing shall be allowed and how many hours of the day?

Mr. PIKE: Have we not already discussed this question on Clause 2?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think we must take the position that the question on how many days in the year racing shall be permitted has already been decided. This Amendment, which says that no dog race shall take place in public except on the appointed days, does not appear to be contrary to anything that has been decided. The further provision in the Amendment is that so many races may be run on one day in public, and it then goes on to define what is meant by "in public," as against races in private. So far as I can see there is nothing in the Amendment inconsistent with anything already decided.

Brigadier-General CRITCHLEY: I should like to urge very strongly that there should not be more than 12 races run on any one day on any track. If you allow the management to run any number of dog races a day you are going to destroy the point that the Bill is trying to make.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I think the hon. and gallant Member will appreciate that it is very difficult to grasp the implication of the manuscript Amendment. I do not complain that a manuscript Amendment is brought forward, but I would point out that there would have been an opportunity on the Report stage, when we might have had ample time to examine the Amendment and see what it does imply. At first glance it seems to me to be a very ingenious method of negotiating the appointed 104 days. The hon. and gallant Member is very modest in his request. He only wants to run one and a-half times the number of races that he now runs. He suggests a maximum of 12 races per day. He would be able to say
any day that he liked. He would be able to say: "We will have six races and we will have a matinee," if that suited the proprietors of the track. He invites the Committee to give the greyhound people the right to run 12 races on one day. There is the real implication of the tote. Give the owners of the tracks the tote and the number of races that they like and they will make it pay.

Brigadier-General CRITCHLEY: Today we could run 100 races per day. There is nothing to stop it in the Bill.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The track owners could run 100 races a day at the present time if they like, but they have not the tote and they could not make profit out of the tote, whether they run 100 or 150 races a day, but if the Bill becomes law and there is no interpretation of what one day means it will be a different matter. It is essential that there should be an interpretation of what a day means. If the Home Secretary has not already made up his mind on that matter he will have to make it up and declare what one day exactly means. If he cannot make up his mind somebody must make it up for him, and the hon. and gallant Member would seem to be trying to do that. He cannot, however, make up my mind to 12 races per day being permitted. If the Home Secretary is determined to have this Bill and to limit the number of days when racing or betting shall take place to 104 days then I cannot conceive why he or anybody else should permit 12 races per day: which would mean that on any day that the company desired they could have a matinee and split the 12 into two sixes. By that means they would get two payments for admission, two lots of charges for the bookmakers and 12 times betting on the tote.
On Bank Holidays the hon. and gallant Member is not satisfied with one matinee but he wants two. If I owned a track or had any financial interest in the sport, if it can be dignified by the name of sport, I would ask for 24, 48, or 72 races, or whatever I thought the Home Secretary was going to give. The suggestion is that there shall be 24 races on Bank Holidays. To-day the average number of races on dog tracks is only eight, so that there could be three times eight races on a Bank Holiday. There could be a race at 10.30, another after lunch, and
another in the evening. That is what we call in Yorkshire making arrangements for shift work, and every shift will have a turn. The hon. and gallant Member has served one purpose. He has at least confronted the Home Secretary with a problem that he now must face. What is a day? It has been decided that there shall be 104 days, according to Clause 1. We should like to know whether a day means that they can have a race in the morning, another in the afternoon and another in the evening, or whether a day means that only one meeting can be held on one day. While I oppose the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member I welcome it because it will tend to make the Home Secretary face up to the question of What is a day.

9.54 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I suppose the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has got it into his head that no good at all can come from anybody who has anything to do with dog racing. The proposition that has been made is, I admit, rather difficult to follow in manuscript form but it does introduce regulations of a restrictive type which I should have thought the hon. Member would have accepted. If he has any ground for attack certainly it is not against my hon. and gallant Friend but against the Government. Repeatedly we have tried to point out the weaknesses of the Bill, and one great weakness was that although you had a day there was no limit or definition of it. You could run three matinees. If the hon. and gallant Member puts in the number twelve it is not for the hon. Member to blame him—it is a restriction. If he wants seven races the hon. Member must move it as an Amendment, and must not blame the hon. and gallant Gentleman for trying to restrict the number of races.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) was a member of the Committee and will know that questions were put as to what was meant by one day's racing. We had no reply, but the Home Secretary will have to make up his mind as to what he really means and intends by "a day." I did not blame the hon. and gallant Member for Twickenham (Brigadier-General Critchley). I said that he was serving a useful purpose by getting a reply from the Home Secretary.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I am glad the hon. Member has explained in that way, because his speech seemed to be an attack on the hon. and gallant Member. I agree that it is high time we had a definition of what is meant by "a day," and if the hon. Member has not the initiative to put an Amendment down I do not think he should blame the hon. and gallant Member. In regard to the second part of the Amendment, it seems to me that we are closing an avenue which might otherwise be easily exploited for betting against the spirit of the Bill. If race meetings are held on days which are not betting days there are ingenious devices by means of credit betting, which might easily be introduced, which should and ought to be avoided. I think that the hon. and gallant Member has suggested a way of stopping the introduction of illegitimate betting on dog race courses. Perhaps the Government cannot accept the Amendment now but there are germs of sanity in it which I think should be incorporated in the Bill at a later stage.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I hope we shall have some guidance on this point, especially for those who have no experience of dog racing. I rely on such information as I can get. The hon. and gallant Member for Twickenham (Brigadier-General Critchley) says that it is possible under the Bill to have 100 races in a day. Can we have some guidance as to the number of races which are at present run? I have no knowledge whatever. Can we have some information as to how long a track is open, and the number of races generally run? Am I to understand that under the present conditions you can have a dog track carrying on its operations and that people representing the poorer part of the community can go in and have eight, 10 or 12 races run, offering them several temptations for the spending of their small earnings? If that be so, the danger which we are dealing with in the Bill is great.
I cannot make up my mind on the Amendment without some knowledge of existing conditions. I can support the Amendment if it is essentially a restriction. If we can have 20 or 25 races per day I should prefer to see 12. I would like to see the tail of the dog cut off very close behind the ear. The smaller the
number of races the better I shall be satisfied. What is the present experience as to the opening of dog tracks? The hon. and gallant Member said that under the Bill you can open your dog track early in the morning and carry on until midnight. What is the present experience? Are tracks generally open only in the evening or for the larger part of the day? If the Amendment is a restriction on what is now happening I shall support it, but I cannot make up my mind owing to my ignorance of existing conditions and I hope that the Home Secretary can enlighten us as to the length of the existing day and the number of races which are normally run under present circumstances.

10.2 p.m.

Sir A. BUTT: Upstairs in Committee I drew the attention of the Home Secretary to the fact that "a day" might mean a large number of meetings, and the Home Secretary then told me that he would give the matter his fullest consideration. I have handed in an Amendment in the shape of a new Clause—I thought it was much fairer than moving it as a manuscript Amendment—defining what is meant, and I have suggested that it should be limited to a maximum of eight races and should not last more than four hours. The suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Twickenham (Brigadier-General Critchley) is a little more ingenious because in 12 hours one might conceivably have two meetings, whereas it would not be easy to have two meetings with a maximum of eight hours. I suggest that we should reject the Amendment and consider later the new Clause which I have handed in, which will be on the Paper to-morrow, which limits a meeting to a maximum of eight races with a maximum duration of four hours, and that on the four exceptional holidays they may double the number of hours and double the number of races.

10.4 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will not press the Amendment at this stage, particularly as the hon. Member for Balham (Sir A. Butt) has put down an Amendment which deals with the latter part of the manuscript Amendment, which in Committee I promised to consider. It would be for the convenience of the Committee that we should have that Amendment before us
before we come to any decision. With regard to the first part of the Amendment—
that no dog races shall be run on any other than the appointed days fixed in pursuance of this part of the Act "—
I confess that I have grave doubt as to whether the Committee should interfere in this matter; it should be under the control of the industry itself. I have promised to look carefully at the problem of the "day," and I think we can more properly consider that question when the new Clause is before us. In those circumstances, I hope the hon. and gallant Member will withdraw his Amendment.

Brigadier-General CRITCHLEY: I am quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment. May I point out that on certain tracks 24 races are held now every day of the week, and in some cases 36 races? It is to avoid that that I put forward the Amendment, but in view of the desire of the Home Secretary I am quite prepared to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.5 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I beg to move, in page 6, line 46, at the end, to add:
(4) Any person aggrieved by the grant or by the refusal to grant a licence in respect of any track for which a licence is in force at the date of this application may appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Quarter Sessions Act, 1849, to the next practicable court of quarter sessions having jurisdiction in the county borough or place in which the track is situate and held, not less than twenty-one clear days after notice of the refusal is given to him by the licensing authority.
In any case arising under this Sub-section the notice of appeal shall be given to the licensing authority and to the clerk of the peace, and in the case of an appeal in respect of the grant of a licence to the person to whom the licence has been granted.
Where the licensing authority has refused to grant a licence as aforesaid then until the time within which notice of an appeal under this Sub-section may be given has expired and, if such notice is duly given, until the determination of the appeal the licence shall be deemed to continue in force, and if the court of quarter sessions confirm the decision of the licensing authority the court may, if they think fit, order that the licence shall continue in force for a further period not exceeding two months from the date of the order.
This is the appeal Clause and the Amendment is one which does not require
a long debate. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has made up his mind "Yes" or "No" for it. The reasons for it are pretty simple, because the Bill shows a certain lack of consistency in framing. It will be noticed that in Clause 15 provision is made for the holder of a track licence to appeal to quarter sessions against the revocation of the licence; but no provision is made at all in the Bill for appeal against a refusal to grant a licence or a refusal to renew a licence. If there is an appeal for the one there certainly should be an appeal for the other. There is this circumstance in the Bill to be considered: In Clause 6, where so many reasons which we have been discussing have been given for the refusal by a local authority to grant a licence, it may well be said that some of those reasons are not reasons of actual fact but of opinion. Consequently there should be an appeal against them. Such considerations as traffic and that sort of thing might be used indeed by prejudiced local authorities against dog racing, qua dog racing, to defeat the granting of a licence. Consequently I have moved an appeal provision here. I hope that those who are against dog racing will notice that the Amendment admits an appeal by any person or persons who may be aggrieved by the granting of a licence.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. KNIGHT: I suggest that the Committee should make the practice laid down in this Bill conform with the usual practice. The authority here is authorised to issue a licence for a public purpose and in such cases it is usual to enable the decision of an authority to be reviewed. The closest analogy I can think of is the case of Brewster Sessions They have authority to issue a licence or for good reasons to refuse to issue a licence. The person aggrieved has a right to appeal to quarter sessions against that decision. There was a Statute passed some years ago, I think it was the Administration of Justice Act of 1925, which enabled any person aggrieved by the refusal of justices to appeal to quarter sessions. I suggest with great respect that it is desirable, where a function of this sort, involving the issue of a licence, is concerned, the person against whom an order is made should have the right to get the matter reviewed at quarter sessions. Indeed the Government have recognised the
rightness of that in Sub-section (2) of Clause 15, where provision is made for appeal in the case of revocation of a licence.

10.10 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am not sure that my hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken realises that this Amendment does not apply to an issue of a licence in the first instance. Therefore the analogy he gave does not in any way affect this Amendment. It generally applies to a case where the licence comes to be reviewed.

Captain A. EVANS: If the learned Solicitor-General will read the first line of the Amendment he will see the words:
Any person aggrieved by the grant or by the refusal to grant a licence"—

The SOLICITOR- GENERAL: The hon. and gallant Member should go on a little further:
in respect of any track for which a licence is in force at the date of this application.
I am taking the explanation given by the Mover of the Amendment, who, I am sure, is a good authority on what his Amendment means. He said it covered only cases where a man asked for renewal of a licence.

Captain EVANS: Of course we appreciate the fact that every track is automatically licensed for five years. Therefore it will come within the category of a track applying for renewal of a licence. But in fact it would be a first application.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think I was quite right. The Amendment does not apply to the ordinary case of a man who comes and applies for his licence for the first time.

Mr. KNIGHT: I thought the Mover of the Amendment was making provision for such a case. If his Amendment does not do that, it should be enlarged.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My hon. and learned Friend should put down an Amendment of his own. I am dealing with the Amendment on the Paper. The Mover of the Amendment referred to the distinction between opinion and fact, which really is our reason for asking the Committee to reject the Amendment, in
spite of the fact that we have provided for an appeal to quarter sessions in Clause 15. If the Committee will look they will see the different classes of matter raised by Clause 6 and Clause 15. Under Clause 6, when the council or the standing joint committee come to consider whether they shall grant a licence, they have to consider its effect on the health of persons and on other matters set out under Sub-section (1), such as the amenities of the neighbourhood and traffic considerations. Those are all really matters of opinion, upon which the county council, acting administratively with their experts and their knowledge, are entitled to arrive at a conclusion. It would not be appropriate to give an appeal from the decision of opinion by an administrative body of that kind to a judicial body like quarter sessions. In Clause 15 the matters set out are such matters as whether a track is conducted in a disorderly manner, whether there has been a substantial increase in the number of seats and so forth. They are matters of fact. The Clause, therefore, provides an appeal to quarter sessions.

Mr. KNIGHT: Would the Solicitor-General accept, on behalf of the Government, the principle that where a person is aggrieved by the decision of an authority on any ground there should be some right of appeal against the decision?

10.15 p.m.

Captain EVANS: I am sure the Committee is disappointed at and certainly not convinced by the reply of the Solicitor-General. He tells us that under Clause 15 if the licence is revoked for any one of these reasons such as bad conduct or non-compliance with certain specified conditions, the track owners would have the right of appeal as set out in Clause 15. Assume for the sake of argument that, although no specific charges have been made against the conduct of a track, the council or the local licensing authority for one reason or another which they have not to specify—

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me I would refer him to Clause 6, Sub-section (3):
Where the licensing authority refuse an application for the grant of a licence, they shall send to the applicant by post a written statement of the grounds of their refusal.

Captain EVANS: I apologise to my hon. and learned Friend. But even if they send such a statement, what is the position? One can assume that A large amount of money has been invested in the track. Suppose the track owners do not share the view expressed in, the written communication. Surely in normal circumstances as applied to any other business when a difference of opinion arose on a legal matter, there would be A right of appeal, before the whole of the investment became paralysed or was lost to the shareholders by such a, decision. As my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment has pointed out, it is not unreasonable to suggest that prejudice might enter into a decision of this kind. On an earlier Amendment it was suggested that it would not be difficult for anybody who wanted to take a prejudiced view on certain points, to find grounds specifically laid down in Clause 6 and to find a convenient way of arriving at a certain opinion. I think my hon. and learned Friend ought to produce a better reason to show why there should be no right of appeal in a case where a track has been properly conducted for a period of years and there has been no complaint against it, but where an application for revocation has been granted for a reason to be specified in writing. If my hon. And learned Friend does not find it possible to accept this Amendment at this stage, may I appeal to him to review the matter between now and the Report stage, bearing in mind that the words of this Amendment are the same as the words in Clause 15? I think if he does review the matter he will find that there is some justice in our case.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I was one of nine who, earlier, voted for a proposal that this whole matter should be dealt with judicially and not administratively. The Solicitor-General has underlined the fact that an application for consideration of a licence has to be dealt with on purely administrative grounds. Every Member of Parliament is aware of a great many things which are dealt with administratively. There are questions of old age pensions, and unemployment benefit about which our constituents write to us from time to time. These matters are dealt with administratively, sometimes by a local committee, sometimes by an officer
of the Ministry, but in effect there is an appeal. The appeal in the first place is to us, the elected representatives of the people, and we approach the Minister if we think a man has been unfairly treated, and we get reconsideration right at the top. Now, apparently, the view is that this is purely an administrative matter in the first place, and that there is no appeal of any kind whatever. It seems to me All wrong that anybody should be in a position to take a final decision on a matter of this kind without any appeal. That seems to me entirely against what I call fair play.
Now the Solicitor-General, who is a lawyer, and I am only an engineer and do not understand these things quite so well, refers us to Clause 15 and says, "You will see there that we provide for an appeal, because there we are dealing with matters of fact to be established", and the rest of it, but Clause 15 deals only with revocation. If a licence has run for its initial period, and the holder comes along for renewal, they may decline to grant a renewal, and there is no right of appeal. If, on the other hand, a track has behaved sufficiently badly that it is revoked, the holder of the licence gets an appeal. In other words, you have only to be a little disorderly, and you get a right of appeal; if you behave quite decently, this Bill gives you no appeal at all. That seems to me a perfectly ridiculous attitude to take up. Surely there ought to be somebody, for the reasons we advanced when we were dealing with an earlier Amendment, in an independent position, outside the local people, to see if these people have had a square deal or not.
I do not know whether or not these are the right words, but if the Government accept the Amendment, a Government draftsman will put it into words that we shall not understand, but the courts will. I really appeal to the Solicitor-General and the Home Secretary to give some reconsideration to this question, so that a. man should not be deprived of all his rights because of some matter of local prejudice or because certain members of a town council do not like the gentlemen promoting a track, or because of any number of reasons, none of which are adequate. I think there ought to be a fair and square deal, and
I am certain that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) will not disagree with me on this.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I hope the learned Solicitor-General will make it clear what is the difference between the procedure he is now suggesting and that in relation to licensed premises. For the latter a man may go to considerable expense in anticipation of getting a licence. He applies then for his licence at the licensing sessions, and although he has a, very strong case, as he thinks, and may have incurred substantial expense, he can have his application refused, and if the refusal is made, that finishes it.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Mr. PIKE: He has an appeal to brewster sessions.

Mr. FOOT: He has not. Let me take the situation. I know there are learned counsel against me on the other side, but—

Mr. KNIGHT: There is a, special sitting of quarter sessions to deal with appeals from licensing sessions.

Mr. FOOT: I will tell the learned counsel the law. If I apply for a licence in the first instance, having put up my premises and incurred, it may be, substantial expenditure in anticipation of the application, I go then to the licensing justices. Any member of the public can appear and oppose, without giving me any notice whatsoever, and if upon my application being heard the licensing bench refuses my application, I have no remedy.[Interruption.] I submit that in that instance I have no remedy.

Mr. KNIGHT: But surely—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think we had better drop this debate on the licensing laws. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to raise the matter and ask a question, as an analogy, but not to debate it.

Mr. FOOT: But assuming that I am right, in the event of my holding a licence and that licence being withdrawn, certainly then have the right of appeal want to ask what is the difference between the practice that is now suggested and that practice with which we are very well acquainted in the ordinary
course of law. I understand that, if I apply for the granting of a dog track licence, I can be refused by the local authorities, and that is an end of my application, but if I have been the holder of a licence, and that licence is withdrawn, then I have, under Clause 15, a right of appeal.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: There is the other case, where they decline to renew—a different thing from cancellation.

Mr. FOOT: I understand that is the third class. That is different from the ordinary licensing of intoxicating liquor. The present case is that of a dog track which, having been in existence for some time, makes an application for the first grant. That is different from having it withdrawn. If you take the existing tracks, there will be a certain period before they make their applications. They are taken, I suppose, as if it were a first grant, giving to the local authority complete power in the matter. I would like some guidance from the Solicitor-General as to how far the practice which it is proposed to set up under this Bill is in correspondence with the practice that obtains and has obtained for very many years in the administration of the licensing law.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. GOLDIE: I intervene very rarely in debate, but may I with respect to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) suggest that, in order to settle his contests with the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight), he should apply for a moneylender's licence and not for one in the licensing trade. What the hon. and gallant Member is moving in this Amendment is identical with the procedure under the Moneylenders Act. Sitting as a deputy-recorder, I have tried a case which, I think I am right in saying, was against the refusal of the justices to renew a moneylender's licence. It seems to me that we get a far closer analogy if we look at the Moneylenders Act. In cases of difficulty an appeal can be made on the broadest possible grounds, either to the county quarter sessions or to the recorder, and it seems to me we should not be going very far wrong, although I have an open mind in the matter and know next to nothing about greyhound racing, if the grounds of
appeal were left very open and general. Possibly, then, the Amendment could be accepted.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Perhaps a layman may have a word on this complicated issue. I will take up the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. Goldie) first. The local authority does not grant a licence for money lending, and that destroys the argument he has put forward. I think there is a ease in favour of the Government's point of view against the Amendment, and it is a very simple and common-sense one. Suppose a local authority felt it should not grant a licence to establish a track in a district in which it knows a track would be offensive to the neighbourhood, It would be a terrible state of affairs if quarter sessions, made up of people who are not living in the neighbourhood, had the power to override the decision of the local authority. Hon. Members of all parties, representing townships as they all do, would feel that the towns they represented would not get fair play if an appeal were made in that way. I do not like the provisions of Clause 15, but we arc not discussing that. I have sat on a local authority for 10 years. I was a member of Manchester City Council, which was governed by a Tory caucus and which, by the way, is beginning to dwindle now; but I would trust that great corporation to decide for the people living in Manchester whether a dog track should be allowed within its territory or not. I think we must trust the local authority in a case of this kind.

10.30 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) has asked me to answer a question, and I will do so quite shortly, though it will not be saying much more than what I have already said. The hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Goldie) put forward the case of a moneylender's licence. I will not go into that instance in detail, but the analogy breaks down at the outset, because there the appeal is from justices to quarter sessions, from one body of judicial people to another. In the case of licensing the work has been entrusted by this House at both stages to judicial persons—to magistrates and then to quarter sessions. Here the House has
decided that the question whether licences shall be granted or renewed on the lines laid down by this Measure shall be a matter to be decided by the county council, and the county council in deciding that matter of administrative procedure are entitled, as an administrative department, to take into account matters which they might not be entitled to consider according to the strict rules of legal procedure. We see the greatest possible difficulty in giving an appeal from that administrative body on what is a matter of opinion to a judicial body such as quarter sessions, where there are different instruments, different methods, and so on. Clause 15 is dealing, really, with quite a different matter. In that case there is a definite decision to revoke, and there are two parties, the person whose licence is revoked and the revoking council, and that we feel is a matter to be sent to quarter sessions. We feel that not only is there an objection to introducing quarter sessions in a matter which the House has decided shall be dealt with by a county council, but there is a great, if not overwhelming, procedure difficulty in making this an appeal to quarter sessions.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The hon. and learned Gentleman has dealt with the case of an application for a new licence and the revocation of a licence, which is the cancellation of a licence during its currency, but he has not said one word about the application for a continuance of an existing licence.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I apologise, but I pointed out in the first sentence of the first speech I made that as the Amendment dealt only with the case of renewals that was the only thing I was going to speak about, and every single word I said since has been dealing only with renewals.

Mr. WILLIAMS: To save time on Report stage, would the hon. and learned Gentleman indicate now what his answer would be if I put down an Amendment on this point?

10.34 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I agree that there would be a great deal of substance in the argument of the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench if he had been dealing only with an application for a licence, but this Amendment only comes
into operation after five years, after a track has been in operation for five years and an application is made for its licence to be renewed, and it seems a little hard that every track in England should be subjected to a trial period of five years not knowing what the local council is going to do at the end of five years. That is the position we are in. If we are aspiring to have well-regulated, well-developed, and well-conducted dog tracks, this type of appeal will not conduce to that end, because nobody is going to invest money on the development of a track or see that it is run as it should be if he does not know whether, at the end, he may not be opposed by a purely partisan local authority instead of having the case Judged on its merits. I do not think I can withdraw the Amendment.

Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 7.—(Special provisions as to first licences for certain exitsting tracks.)

10.35 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 7, line 8, to leave out from "track," to "shall," in line 10, and to insert:
made on any such date fixed by the licensing authority under sub-section (1) of section five of this Act as falls before the first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-five.
This Amendment and the others which I am moving to Clause 7 substitute for the proposals in the Bill the simple requirements that an applicant for a licence in respect of an existing track must (1) give notice to the licensing authority of his intention to apply for a licence; (2) claim that he is entitled to benefit by the special procedure prescribed for existing tracks; and (3) publish the notice of his intention to apply for a licence so as to enable his statements to be checked. This is the simplification which I believe will be to the advantage of tracks who make application under the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 12, leave out from beginning to "delivered," in line 24, and insert:
(a) at least two months before the application is made the applicant—
(i) has.
In line 26, after "police," insert:
a written notice describing the situation of the track and stating that he intends to make application on that date claiming the grant of the licence by virtue of this section, and also.
In line 35, at the end, insert:
(ii) has published the said notice and a copy of the said declaration in at least two newspapers circulating in the locality in which the track is situate; and.
In line 40, leave out Sub-section (3), and insert:
(3) Every such declaration as aforesaid delivered to the licensing authority in connection with any application for a licence shall, until the hearing of the application and, if the application is granted, so long as the licence remains in force, be kept by the licensing authority at their offices so as to be available at any time during office hours for inspection by any member of the public free of charge.
In page 8, line 16, after "revoked," insert "or cancelled."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

10.38 p.m.

Mr. MAGNAY: I beg to move, in page 8, line 19, to leave out "five," and to insert "three."
Five seems a purely arbitrary figure. There is nothing scientific about it, as might be inferred from the fact that in Clause 8 seven years is the period decided upon. If three years is a good enough period for Income Tax purposes, it is probably quite good enough in this case.

10.39 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The Government think that five years is a reasonable length of time as a moratorium for existing tracks. They are fortified in their view in that that was the length of the period fixed by the committee which discussed dog racing in 1933 on the Bill introduced by the hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles). The committee on that occasion agreed that five was a reasonable time, and we take that view. It has to be remembered that there are no compensatory provisions. Tracks that apply under these provisions will get a clear run of five years. We do not provide any compensation for them. In view of the expense that has been entailed in the erection of tracks, five years seems a reasonable period.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is there not one other point to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman might have referred, namely,
that, if the period is only three years, it will be an inducement to those in charge of tracks to conduct them well, while if it is five years they may try any sort of tricks to make the track pay. If this be not an institution of grave national importance, it seems to me that a period of three years is perhaps long enough. I agree that there should be power not only to revoke but to extend the period from time to time.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. CLARRY: I am amazed that the Mover of the Amendment has made no attempt whatever to justify a reduction of the period from five to three years. The Bill as it stands deals very arbitrarily with track owners at the present time, and one would expect that, when an Amendment of this character was moved, some justification would be offered, some argument, and some cases which might lead one to assume that there was reason to believe that a three-year period was a sufficient period in which to utilise the capital which had been expended. The hon. Gentleman, however, made no case at all, and, in view of the fact that the Bill already deals very harshly with the greyhound racing public, I hope that the Government will not entertain any idea of accepting the Amendment.

10.42 p.m.

Captain A. EVANS: The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) may not consider that this is an interest of national importance, but there is no reason why he should attempt to apply to it the Socialist principle of confiscation, which is what it amounts to. The Under-Secretary has pointed out that five years was considered to be a reasonable period. Why was it considered to be reasonable? Because it was held that in five years the track-owner would be able to make what arrangements were feasible for liquidating his capital in the best way. I am surprised to find a Member of the Liberal party allying himself with the principle of confiscation. I doubt very much whether he would like to see his own business assessed on a three-years' life and then confiscated.

Mr. MAGNAY: I must reply to that statement. If I were offered three years' goodwill for my professional business, I would lock the door and shake the man's hand off.

Captain EVANS: That may apply to my hon. Friend's business, but he has forgotten to take into consideration the fact that in this case, at the end of three years, there would be no goodwill to dispose of, because the track would be closed.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Does the hon. and gallant Member anticipate that these tracks would be closed if they were conducted under reasonable conditions and meeting the requirements of the public?

Captain EVANS: I do not anticipate that they will be closed; I only hope that they will not be closed; but, if they are closed, I think the only fair basis is to allow five years in which to wind up their affairs and do what is possible on a percentage of working expenses—which, after all, does not allow for any profit—to liquidate their original capital. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not be persuaded to accept the Amendment.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I am very much surprised to hear the question of compensation mentioned at all. From the point of view of equity, I suppose a Bill of this description is unprecedented. It has been stated that on the question of revocation there is no appeal. Is it to be said that, where people have carried on a legitimate business and gone to a great outlay, they are to have no further interest and no rights? Will anyone with a spirit of fair play say that, when perhaps £30,000 or £50,000 has been laid out and a sport or recreation provided and it has been carried on in a right and proper way, as I believe it has been, renewal of the licence may be refused and the question of a period of time is not to be taken into consideration? I do not give any bouquet to the National Government, but I think they are wise in rejecting the question of three years. If a track is not well conducted, action may be taken without waiting for a fresh application. It may be that from the point of view of the amenities of a district or from a public health point of view, or a surveyor's point of view, it is unnecessary that a track should exist, and revocation of the licence would automatically take place. I am not holding any brief for them, but I am interested in three different companies in Liverpool because they are giving some form of
recreation, and I want to see a fair and square deal as far as possible. Some Members may be puritanical in their outlook, but there ought to be a spirit of equity. I do not know why there should be a vindictive spirit. I can see a thousand and one abuses to which I should like to put an end, but in this I can only see an innocent form of sport, and you want to be vindictive in the matter of three years. I am in total disagreement. I want to see the fair and honourable thing done.

10.50 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: The proposal as I understand it is that, if a track is considered by a licensing authority to be redundant and superfluous, it must retain its licence for five years providing it is an existing track. If it is required for the public amusement and would in any event get a licence, it should make no difference whether the period is five years or three years. It is simply a question of how long you are going to tolerate a track which has been licensed but which the local authority think detrimental to the interests of the neighbourhood and which aught to be closed down. Looking at it from that point of view and remembering that, under another condition, licences have to be revoked if tracks are not properly conducted there is really very little difference between the five years and the three. The real issue is: When are you going to begin granting licences only where they are required under the new conditions set up by this Bill? Looked at from that point of view it is a question of the public interest and it occurs to me that three years is really an ample period.
This is one of the things in the Bill as originally drafted and as it now stands which I have never been able to understand. When the Under-Secretary spoke just now it appeared that like so many other things settled in another place regarding this Bill, as for instance the percentage business, this matter seems to have been settled in the most casual manner in the world. All the Under-Secretary could tell us was that it seemed that on the whole five years was a reasonable period. The figure five may have a special significance; at any rate, there seems to be a general antipathy to any number of an equal denomination, two, four or six, They jump from three to five and from five to seven, and all the satisfaction we
can obtain is that on the whole the Government thought that five would be a reasonable number. Looking at it from the point of view that you are going to set up a new licensing authority and a new system altogether, that you are trying to regulate this industry—I hesitate to call it sport—in the interest of the public, I really think that the Committee are justified in asking that we should have a little better, reason than that somehow five years seemed a reasonable figure to put in. Why not four, or six, or the number which the hon. Member suggests? He may not have given any valid reasons for making it three years, but the reason obviously underlying it is that three is less than five and that if you are going to set up a new system, the sooner you get it working the better. If you are going to have a licensing Act administered in the public interest, the sooner you get to that position the better. Therefore, if there is to be a Division, I shall feel tempted to support the hon. Member, though I am certainly not in favour of confiscation or anything of that kind. And there really is no question of confiscation at all. If a track is required in the interests of the amusement of the people of the neighbourhood and is properly conducted I can see no reason whatever why it should not continue in existence for 50 years. But it ought not to continue in existence for a, single day if it is thought to be not in the interests of the public.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: If this goes to a Division, I shall vote for the Amendment and shall consider that I am doing no injustice to any person concerned. As has been pointed out by the hon. Baronet, this proposal would only give to a local authority the power to get rid of what they consider to be an undesirable dog track. If there be an undesirable dog track why should it be imposed on the locality for five years? That is the question the hon. Member has failed to answer. Assuming you have a reasonable dog track and a reasonable local authority, that authority is not likely to impose hardship upon people in its neighbourhood who have established the track. But if there is a track that is a nuisance in the neighbourhood, why should the local authority be held up from taking action? We are told about injustice and lack of compensation. I
would ask the Committee to consider the fact that in the last 12 months or two, three, four or probably six years, no one has invested a penny in a new dog tracks—I think that the hon. Baronet will agree with me—without knowing that this was to be a likely subject of legislation. Certainly, no one has put any substantial sum in such a track. It has been known for a long time that this matter has not been dealt with by earlier Parliaments because of congestion of business. Further, every one is well aware that when dog tracks were springing up like mushrooms there was a very determined appeal on the part of the local authorities that some power should be given to them for controlling these things which were springing up in their midst. Therefore, every investment made in the last six years has been made in the light of these facts, and I shall vote for the Amendment because I think that three years is a long enough time for restriction to be placed on the local authority before they can recover the power which should have been given to them by legislation some years ago.

10.57 p.m.

Captain A. EVANS: I think there is no difference of opinion that the purpose of specifying five years in the Bill is to meet the claim of compensation. I would like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) to consider for a moment the following situation. Assume that a track is properly conducted, well patronised and well run in a selected area, that a vast amount of capital is invested in the enterprise, and that subsequent to the track being established, a planning scheme is approved by the Minister for Health and the area subsequently becomes an area within a planning scheme. Surely the hon. Gentleman will not suggest that they should be penalised because a local authority or the Minister of Health has decided that that shall be a planning area within the meaning of the Act, and because of that their capital outlay should necessarily be confiscated?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Perhaps the hon. Member will admit that should the existing tracks be within a planning area, it makes no difference to the fact whether the years in the Bill are five, four, three,
two or one. Therefore the question of compensation does not arise.

Mr. MAGNAY: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, and to say that I shall play the game again tomorrow in regard to a subsequent Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 8, line 20, leave out "first day of January," and insert instead thereof "beginning of July."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave sit again."—[Captain, Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — POOR LAW BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

11.0 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a, Second time."
I hope the Bill will be non-controversial. The House will remember that certain amendments were made last Session in the Poor Law as applied to Scotland. This Bill does exactly the same thing as regards the Poor Law in England, so that we can march side by side with Scotland. Under Clause I certain income is to be disregarded in the calculation of income from the point of view of public assistance. The first 5s. of trade union sick benefit is to be disregarded. The first 7s. 6d. of national health insurance benefit is already disregarded under statute, and the first –1 for a wound or disability pension is also to be completely disregarded, and the first maternity benefit. In Clause I (5) the definition of the person who may get the benefit of this disregarding of the –1 wound c r disability pension is made to assimilate to the exact definition in the Scottish law. Under Clause 2 (4), as in the Scottish Act, the Minister of Health will fix the appointed day from which the operation of the law as to disregarding the first –1 of the disability pension will operate. With these few words I commend the Second Reading of
the Bill. It will be a step forward in the administration of public assistance which is in keeping with the general sense of the country and general public opinion.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I do not think that anyone will wish to divide against the Second Reading of the Bill. As I have said on more than one occasion, we like the Bill as far as it goes. We are not sure that it goes as far as it ought to go. It is right that the Government should at this stage introduce a Bill which to some extent assimilates the Poor Law to what has now become the practice as regards the treatment of unemployed persons. This Bill is an indication that we are getting into a first-rate muddle as between the Poor Law and unemployment assistance, and if the Government live as long as some Members who support it believe it will we shall have this conflict between the new Unemployment Act and the Poor Law raised again in the House.
In 1932, under the Act dealing with transitional payment, it was mandatory on those administering transitional payments to persons outside insurance to take certain things, as for example sick pay, into account. Every person who applied for transitional payment had taken into account any sick pay, that was not new law, disability pensions, at least the first part, house property up to a certain amount and half workmen's compensation, but as regards the Poor Law, these things, except as regards sick pay, remain discretionary. The Scottish Poor Law Act did attempt to bring into line the law as regards unemployed persons who were outside the Poor Law and persons who had to apply for poor relief. When that Bill was before the Committee, some of my hon. Friends on the Scottish Standing Committee raised the question of workmen's compensation. It is true that in the Scottish Poor Law Act some of the discretionary power which was given to Poor Law authorities was made mandatory, but not as regards workmen's compensation. The difficulty is this. Under the 1934 Unemployment Act, shortly to operate, there are certain benefits accruing to an unemployed person which the Unemployment Assistance Board must disregard. It must disregard sick pay, maternity benefit and –1 of disability pension. It must also disregard
one-half of workmen's compensation. That is mandatory on the Unemployment Assistance Board, whether they think it is a good case or a bad one; if a man appears before the board and is in receipt of workmen's compensation, it must be taken into account. They must disregard it.
The one outstanding point on which we have a quarrel with the Government is on the matter of workmen's compensation. I do not want to be party political on this point, but in the interests of good administration, if the new Unemployment Assistance Board, which on the showing of the Government is taking over most of the responsibility with regard to the able bodied unemployed, are going to have regard and discount workmen's compensation, then it ought to be done with regard to the Poor Law. That seems to me to be reasonable. After all, it is nearly 16 years since the War ended, and we are now in what we hope will be a period of peace. If it be right for the Government to make a concession as regards those who have disabilities because they fought for their country, what is the logical reason for denying some concession to workmen who have lost their health and suffered disabilities by working for their country in times of peace?
It seems to me that that is a reasonable suggestion. The Parliamentary Secretary spoke of assimilating the Poor Law of England to the new legislation. It does not do it in respect of workmen's compensation. Most of my hon. Friends who are more closely associated with industry than I am, and who know how important a part payments in respect of accidents arising in or out of the course of employment may play in the life of workmen, feel that it would have been generous if the Government had provided in the Bill sufficiently to cover people under workmen's compensation.
That is my case. I am not trying to make any kind of capital out of it. We accept the Bill, and we are glad that it is before the House, but we do wish to point out very earnestly to the Government that we regard not merely as a weakness in the Bill, but as a grievance which some of us are entitled to feel, that in widening the power to include consideration of certain forms of income
which go into the working class family in times of destitution, no regard is paid to workmen's compensation. I hope that the Government, even if it means widening the Title of the Bill and giving a little further consideration to it, will consider this point. A man who has been injured in the course of his work is entitled from the community to the same treatment, whether he be dealt with by the National Unemployment Assistance Board or by the Poor Law. If the Government cannot accept this proposal, I am afraid we must try to find some way of raising it during the Committee stage. But I beg the Government to consider it before the Bill enters the Committee stage on Friday. We are not opposing the Bill, but I make this appeal to the Government.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): It would be almost discourteous, in view of the very moderate reply of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. A. Greenwood) to the Parliamentary Secretary, if I did not say a word on the specific point he has raised with reference to workmen's compensation. The point is one which, no doubt, as he suggested, may be more usefully discussed in Committee. But even at this early stage I would point out to him, in reply, why it is that the Bill has been framed precisely as it is framed. We are here assimilating the law in order to prevent unjustifiable discrepancies arising between the law of England and that of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that, when the Scottish Bill was under consideration, Parliament decided in that connection, when the question of workmen's compensation was specifically raised, that the power given to the public assistance authority to ignore one-half of any compensation should be a discretion of the authority, and that is the manner in which we propose to leave it in the present Bill.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: It is true that this Bill is assimilating the Scottish Poor Law and the English Poor Law, but, surely, the motive of the original Bill
was to assimilate the Scottish Poor Law with the new law which is now to operate under the Unemployment Act of 1934. It may be accidental that the Scottish Bill came first. Scottish Poor Law is more complicated than English and I do not understand it. This is a bolt out of the blue. If it is not a process of assimilation with the Unemployment Act of 1934, this Measure is not one that should be taken after eleven o'clock at night.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: The position will be that after 7th January the partially incapacitated man will be dealt with by the Unemployment Assistance Board, and in assessing his need one-half of his partial compensation will be allowed to him. The totally incapacitated man will not be dealt with by the Unemployment Assistance Board, and if he needs extra assistance, he will be compelled to apply to the public assistance authority. Suppose you have a partially incapacitated man with –1 a week compensation, 10s. of that will be taken into account and 10s. allowed to him. But there are thousands of men who, owing to irregular work and low wages are, while totally incapacitated, drawing less than 25s. a week in compensation and when such a man has to apply to the public assistance authorities nothing is allowed to him out of his compensation. We certainly hope the Minister will give this matter consideration between now and the Committee stage and try to meet what we believe to be a point of substance.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Captain Margesson.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen Minutes after Eleven o' Clock.